What Is It?
Complex Instruction (CI) is a teaching model that uses collaborative
groups, multiple intelligences, and positive group experiences while
disregarding gender, ethnicity, and socio-economic status. In teaching how
to use collaborative groups to take advantage of diverse intelligences,
Complex Instruction addresses the issues of: the nature of group tasks;
new roles for persons working in groups; problems of unequal participation
in group work; integration of group work and other modes of instruction
(such as labs and whole class discussion); and performance assessment in
groups.
The CI teacher training program was conducted in 1997/98 and
1998/99. It consisted of three- or four-day training Institutes,
classroom observation and assistance, and one-day, follow-up Summits. Each
participant received a complete three-ring binder containing a manual on
the theory and practice of Complex Instruction, all supplies needed to
develop skill-builders activities, and master copies for implementing the
norms and roles of the Complex Instruction model. Workshop participants
received professional development in three areas: implementation of
effective solutions for student status equity problems in self-contained
and mainstream classrooms; assignment of status competence to students;
and development of institutional planning for equitable learning
environments.
Who Participated and When?
Grants from the Kentucky Department of Education (KDE) provided Complex
Instruction training and on-site technical assistance for 41 middle school
mathematics and science teachers in 1997/98 and 1998/99. These
participants were from 23 schools across 12 counties.
Most recently the 1998/99 Complex Instruction Institute was held in
Lexington July 13-16, 1998, 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. each day. Twenty-one
participants were selected for the 1998/99 class, with a waiting list of
over 40 additional names. To receive stipends and reimbursement for
expenses, participants signed a contract in which they agreed to apply
Complex Instruction in their classrooms and to attend a one-day Summit in
spring 1999 to share their experiences. Teachers were observed and
received on-site assistance throughout spring 1999. The 1999 Summit was
held June 5 with eight participants able to return for the follow-up,
although several others had actually implemented CI.
The 1997/98 class consisted of 20 individuals who participated in a
three- or four-day Institute either in March or June 1997. Ten of these
participants were able to return for the one-day, follow-up Summit held in
Lexington on July 17, 1998, to share their experiences in applying Complex
Instruction throughout the previous year. This class also received site
visits throughout the year from CI-trained personnel who observed and
provided on-site assistance. [A complete list of all participants is
attached.]
How Did They Like It?
All training
Institutes were highly rated by participants. The 1998 Institute received an
overall evaluation of 4.99 on a 5.0 Likert scale. Participants were
especially appreciative of the opportunity for hands-on involvement,
simulation experiences, group interactions, and curriculum development.
Research Findings
Program Observations . Two types
of observations are integral to the CI program. Whole Class
Observations assess the percentage of collaborative interaction
engaged in by the students during an assigned CI task. Teacher
Observations evaluate teacher behavior in the application of two
status treatments that identify and utilize students' multiple abilities
and foster higher order thinking and inclusive learning environments. This
process measures teachers' progress in changing the classroom climate to
one of inclusion such that student status and learning style do not
preclude learning and instruction.
It should be noted that teachers began using CI in their instruction at
their own pace. This flexibility allows for a more effective infusion into
any K-16 curriculum. Depending on teachers' and students' needs, an
extensive use of introductory tasks called Skill-builders may be required
and used, while other teachers may move rapidly from Skill-builders into
content infusion.
In 1997/98 observations were conducted by CI trainers at five sites in
three counties: Madison, Fayette, and Washington. Nine teachers were
observed at seven different sites in Knox, Madison and Hopkins counties in
1998/99. Key results of both the whole class and the teacher observations
conducted in 1998/99 are provided below. Although the number of
observations per teacher varied, the attached chart compares the initial
visit to the final visit for each teacher. It is critical to note that
these data are preliminary; growth as CI teachers is on-going and improves
over time. Charts summarizing results for both 1997/98 and 1998/99 are
included at the end of this report.
Whole Class Observations -- Key Results
As the use of Talk and Manipulatives category increased, the
reading/writing category decreased indicating that as the collaboration
among learners increased the status issues decreased in the course of
the group talking and manipulating materials.
Improved classroom management was evident with all teachers’
percentage averages below 15% for ‘Disengaged.’
Six of the nine teachers met and surpassed the target percentage goals
for behaviors that foster collaboration by the final observation.
Teacher Observations -- Key Results
- All nine teachers show inconsistency in the categories of Multiple
Abilities and Assignment of Competence. This is an indicator that
these areas need support.
- Though these data are not conclusive, they are surprisingly strong
given that most of the teachers were in their initial months of using
CI tasks.
The trainers submitted a final report on the 1998/99 CI class in which
they reported that they were pleased with preliminary teacher
accomplishments and that the teachers have the potential to become expert
CI evaluators for their schools. The report also stressed that educators
need to realize that establishing a cooperative learning program requires
continued follow-up to ensure that both teachers and students do not
"burn out" on these new techniques. The report recommends that future
teachers selected for the Institute should foster strong management
potential and be willing to implement the strategies with close follow-up
supervision for one year. Additional comments are summarized below:
- Program Flexibility
. Flexibility in starting time is a strength
of the CI method. Some teachers and students may need extensive use of
introductory tasks, or skill-builders, while others will move rapidly
from skill-builders to content fusion.
- Problem Areas for Teachers
. Teachers need opportunities to use
and perfect the two status treatments: multiple abilities (which focuses
on cognitive abilities) and assignment of competence (requires the
teacher to notice the good things that problematic students do, giving
specific and public feedback to the student and to understand status
processes in the classroom). Learning to "delegate authority"
and not feel they are losing control of the classroom is another
difficult area for teachers.
- Additional Teacher Support
. CI instruction will require more
organizational support for teachers than they usually receive. It is
recommended that principals assist teachers with the preparation and
storage of CI materials. (It was noted that CI requires curricular
materials that are different from those used in traditional classroom
instruction.) Principals could also coordinate personnel and meeting
times for teaching teams.
- Program Expansion
. The class/teacher observations and the Summit
provided opportunities to discuss some of the issues and to network.
Teachers repeatedly voiced their belief that CI provides the curriculum
and instructional framework that can help all students succeed. They are
eager to expand CI and to strengthen district capabilities.
Program Funding
CI costs were underwritten by grants from the
KDE Eisenhower Program. A stipend was awarded to each
participant who attended a full multi-day Institute, committed to using the
model in his/her classroom, and returned for a one-day, follow-up Summit the
following spring. These funds covered the costs for all seminar materials,
meals, travel and lodging for 21 participants in the 1998/99 class and 20
participants in the 1997/98 class. Each class member received an additional
stipend for his/her participation in the one-day, follow-up Summit. KSTC
staff provided all administrative services, fiscal accounting and final
project reporting to KDE.
About the Trainers
Two CI-trained program faculty provided the
instruction for both classes: Dr. Deneese Jones, Associate Professor College
of Education, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky and Dr. Karen
Webb, Dean College of Education, Southern University, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana. Support instructors and/or research assistants included Bessie
Guerrant, Laura Fox, Sherry Powers, Claude Christian and Todd Savage.
About the Sponsors
The Partnership for
Initiatives in Science and Mathematics (PRISM), a partnership between the
Kentucky Department of Education and the Kentucky Science and Technology
Corporation was pleased to sponsor this program in Kentucky based on a model
used at Stanford University. The PRISM Equity Initiative researched various
models and found Complex Instruction to be one of the proven models that can
improve student academic achievement for all students. Support from the KDE
Eisenhower Program has allowed PRISM to develop and continue this program
for Kentucky teachers of mathematics, science, and technology.
Contact Person
For more information contact Joanne Lang at Kentucky Science and
Technology Corporation, ph: 606.233.3502 ext 236 or 228, or e-mail: jlang@kstc.org.
For more information on the research findings, contact Deneese Jones at
University of Kentucky at 606.257.4555 or email dljone01@pop.uky.edu
Kentucky Science and Technology Corporation
Complex Instruction Participants
1997/1998 and 1998/1999
|
Names |
Schools |
Dates |
Districts |
|
Casey, Elberta |
Crawford Middle School |
3/27-3/29/97 |
Fayette County |
|
Crum, Richard |
Washington Co. Middle School |
3/27-3/29/97 |
Washington Co. |
|
Ellis, Peggy |
Lee County Middle School |
3/27-3/29/97 |
Lee County |
|
Gabhart, Patricia |
Washington Co. Middle School |
3/27-3/29/97 |
Washington Co. |
|
Hamilton, Curtis |
Washington Co. Middle School |
3/27-3/29/97 |
Washington Co. |
|
Jewell, Darlene |
Crawford Middle School |
3/27-3/29/97 |
Fayette County |
|
Kelly, Dawn |
Crawford Middle School |
3/27-3/29/97 |
Fayette County |
|
Salone, Bernadette |
Crawford Middle School |
3/27-3/29/97 |
Fayette County |
|
Sipple, Alice |
Lee County Middle School |
3/27-3/29/97 |
Lee County |
|
Buckner, John |
Georgetown Middle School |
6/9-6/11/97 |
Scott County |
|
Burke, Steve |
Georgetown Middle School |
6/9-6/11/97 |
Scott County |
|
Chi, Ronald |
Winburn Middle School |
6/9-6/11/97 |
Fayette County |
|
Combs, Tammy |
Foley Middle School |
6/9-6/11/97 |
Madison County |
|
Cook, Sandra |
Northern Middle School |
6/9-6/11/97 |
Fayette County |
|
Greene, William |
Winburn Middle School |
6/9-6/11/97 |
Fayette County |
|
Nichols, Teresa |
Northern Middle School |
6/9-6/11/97 |
Fayette County |
|
Sledd, David |
Georgetown Middle School |
6/9-6/11/97 |
Scott County |
|
Stayton, Lisa |
Winburn Middle School |
6/9-6/11/97 |
Fayette County |
|
Wiseman, Greg |
Foley Middle School |
6/9/-6/11/97 |
Madison County |
|
Yeager, Patricia |
Northern Middle School |
6/9-6/11/97 |
Fayette County |
| |
|
|
|
|
Broughton, Kay |
Dewitt Elementary School |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Knox County |
|
Carpenter, Debbie |
Berea Community Elementary |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Madison County |
|
Cessna, Martha |
Crittenden Co. Middle |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Crittenden Co. |
|
Davis, Deborah L. |
Girdler Elementary School |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Knox County |
|
Dunaway, Selina |
Girdler Elementary School |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Knox County |
|
Gray, Kathy |
Flat Lick Elementary School |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Knox County |
|
Hamlin, Lawanna |
Education Center |
7/13-7/16/98 |
McCreary County |
|
Hampton, Sharon |
Artemus Elementary School |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Knox County |
|
Johnson, Donna Sue |
Virgie Middle School |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Pike County |
|
Kash, Michael |
Rowan Co. Middle School |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Rowan County |
|
Kennon, Rebecca |
Pikeville High School |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Pike County |
|
Kirk, Jeanne W. |
Crittenden Co. Middle |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Crittenden Co. |
|
Leddington, Patricia |
Artemus Elementary School |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Knox County |
|
Martin, Tanya |
Browning Springs Middle |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Hopkins County |
|
Miller, Robert J |
Eastern KY University |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Madison County |
|
Miracle, Lori B. |
Knox Central High School |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Knox County |
|
Ortega, Shelia |
J.D. Adams Middle School |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Floyd County |
|
Savage, Todd |
University of Kentucky |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Fayette County |
|
Spears, Jane K |
Browning Springs Middle |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Hopkins County |
|
Walker, Sharon |
Dewitt Elementary School |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Knox County |
|
Wallace, Pat |
Bryan Station High School |
7/13-7/16/98 |
Fayette County |
Results of Whole Class
Observations and Teacher Observations
Initial and Final Observations
Collected for Teachers (T) at Five Sites During 1997/98
| WHOLE
CLASS OBSERVATIONS CATEGORIES |
Goal (%)
|
T1
Initial Visit (%) |
T1
Final Visit (%) |
T2
Initial Visit (%) |
T2
Final Visit (%) |
T3
Initial Visit (%) |
T3
Final Visit (%) |
T4
Initial Visit (%) |
T4
Final Visit (%) |
T5
Initial Visit (%) |
T5 Final Visit (%) |
| Talk/Talk Manipulate Materials |
35.0 (min) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
19.5 |
41.0 |
27.0 |
37.0 |
22.6 |
35.0 |
22.5 |
29.0 |
| Manipulate Materials Only |
10.0 |
69.0 |
69.0 |
11.1 |
59.0 |
48.4 |
44.0 |
33.0 |
30.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
| Read/Write Materials |
14.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
10.8 |
34.0 |
42.5 |
22.0 |
25.6 |
22.0 |
6.0 |
6.0 |
| Look/Listen |
|
31.5 |
13.0 |
21.9 |
7.0 |
23.2 |
13.0 |
12.0 |
18.0 |
66.5 |
58 |
| Disengagement |
15 .0 (max) |
0.0 |
0.0 |
6.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
4.6 |
0.0 |
2.0 |
4.0 |
| Waiting for Adult |
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
1.6 |
0.0 |
2.0 |
13.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
2.0 |
0.0 |
|
| TEACHER
OBSERVATIONS CATEGORIES |
Description
|
T2 Initial
Visit (%) |
T2 Final
Visit (%) |
T3
Initial Visit (%) |
T3 Final
Visit (%) |
T4 Initial
Visit (%) |
T4
Final Visit (%) |
T5 Initial
Visit (%) |
T5 Final
Visit (%) |
| Facilitates students' work |
Teachers become a resource during CI
task rather than "rescue" students by telling them what to do to complete task
|
3.0 |
11.0 |
24.0 |
26.0 |
18.0 |
26.0 |
5.0 |
29.0 |
| Disciplines |
Teachers discipline less than 15%
|
0.0 |
0.0 |
13.3 |
0.0 |
2.2 |
0.0 |
7.0 |
3.0 |
| Informs/Instructs/ Defines |
Teachers give appropriate feedback to
groups |
7.0 |
7.0 |
7.0 |
15.0 |
7.4 |
16.0 |
3.0 |
8.0 |
| Asks factual questions |
Teachers debrief the collaborative
groups at the end of the lesson by making sure they learned essential information |
2.0 |
7.0 |
19.0 |
20.5 |
11.0 |
31.0 |
17.0 |
21.0 |
| Stimulates higher order thinking |
Teachers raise frequency of asking
students higher order thinking questions |
19.0 |
21.0 |
4.0 |
11.2 |
5.0 |
16.0 |
0.0 |
2.0 |
| Makes connections |
Teachers assist students in relating or
applying information |
0.0 |
2.0 |
3.5 |
11.0 |
10.6 |
23.0 |
2.6 |
11.0 |
| Gives specific feedback |
Teachers offer information to students
in group settings |
2.0 |
7.0 |
11.0 |
19.0 |
4.0 |
19.0 |
21.0 |
29.0 |
| Talks about multiple abilities |
Teachers give multiple abilities
treatment |
11.0 |
21.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
5.0 |
12.0 |
0.0 |
6.0 |
| Assigns competence |
Teachers instill confidence in their
students various abilities |
0.0 |
6.0 |
3.5 |
8.0 |
3.0 |
7.0 |
6.0 |
11.0 |
| Talks about roles |
Teachers discuss collaborative group
roles with students |
18.0 |
21.0 |
0.0 |
6.0 |
3.0 |
11.0 |
4.0 |
14.0 |
| Talks about cooperative norms |
Teachers discuss behavior norms
engendered by CI tasks |
2.0 |
7.0 |
0.0 |
13.0 |
1.0 |
11.0 |
4.0 |
3.0 |
Results
of Whole Class Observations
Initial
and Final Observations Collected for Nine Teachers (T) During 1998/99
|
WHOLE
CLASS OBSERVATIONS CATEGORIES
|
Description
|
Goal
(%)
|
T1
Initial Visit (%)
|
T1
Final Visit (%)
|
T2
Initial Visit (%)
|
T2
Final Visit (%)
|
T3
Initial Visit (%)
|
T3
Final Visit (%)
|
T4
Initial Visit (%)
|
T4
Final Visit (%)
|
T5
Initial Visit (%)
|
T5
Final Visit (%)
|
|
Talk/Talk
Manipulate Materials
|
Students
are talking to each other about the task; group is working with task
materials.
|
35
(min.)
|
34.5
|
16.0
|
14.0
|
28.5
|
34.8
|
16.5
|
21.6
|
72.0
|
82.8
|
100.0
|
|
Manipulate
Materials Only
|
Students
are working together using the materials.
|
10.0
|
0.0
|
2.5
|
0.0
|
36.0
|
24.2
|
24.5
|
9.4
|
6.0
|
3.6
|
0.0
|
|
Read/Write
Materials
|
Students
are reading directions or enrichment materials.
|
14.0
|
22.0
|
71.0
|
69.0
|
19.0
|
13.8
|
0.0
|
44.0
|
16.0
|
2.8
|
0.0
|
|
Look/Listen
|
Activities
which are not interactive and do not promote collaboration.
|
|
44.0
|
11.0
|
16.5
|
17.0
|
3.4
|
55.0
|
7.4
|
3.0
|
3.6
|
0.0
|
|
Disengagement
|
15
.0
(max.)
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
4
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
3.0
|
5.8
|
0.0
|
|
Waiting
for Adult
|
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
1.4
|
0.0
|
|
WHOLE
CLASS OBSERVATIONS CATEGORIES
|
Description
|
Goal
(%)
|
T6
Initial Visit (%)
|
T6
Final
Visit (%)
|
T7
Initial Visit (%)
|
T8&9
Initial Visit (%)
|
T8
Final Visit (%)
|
T9
Final Visit
(%)
|
Ave.
Range 98/99 (%)
|
Ave.
Range 97/99 (%)
|
|
Talk/Talk
Manipulate Materials
|
Students
are talking to each other about the task; group is working with task
materials.
|
35.0
(min.)
|
28.0
|
36.0
|
43.0
|
30.4
|
51.7
|
15.0
|
33.7
|
|
|
Manipulate
Materials Only
|
Students
are working together using the materials.
|
10.0
|
14.0
|
0.0
|
39.3
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
63.0
|
|
|
|
Read/Write
Materials
|
Students
are reading directions or enrichment materials.
|
14.0
|
39.0
|
23.5
|
0.0
|
9.6
|
9.3
|
0.0
|
|
|
|
Look/Listen
|
Activities
which are not inter-active and do not promote collaboration.
|
|
19.5
|
40.5
|
17.3
|
58.0
|
18.3
|
9.5
|
|
|
|
Disengagement
|
15
.0
(max.)
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.4
|
21.0
|
11.5
|
|
|
|
Waiting
for Adult
|
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
2.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
|
|
Results of
Teacher Observations
Initial and Final Observations
Collected for Nine Teachers (T) During 1998/99
|
TEACHER
OBSERVATIONS CATEGORIES
|
Description
|
T1
Initial Visit (%)
|
T1
Final Visit (%)
|
T2
Initial Visit (%)
|
T2
Final Visit (%)
|
T3
Initial Visit (%)
|
T3
Final Visit (%)
|
T4
Initial Visit (%)
|
T4
Final Visit (%)
|
|
Facilitates
students' work
|
Teachers
become a resource during CI task rather than "rescue"
students by telling them what to do to complete task
|
24.0
|
9.7
|
11.5
|
11.0
|
17.5
|
24.5
|
41.5
|
23.5
|
|
Disciplines
|
Teachers
discipline less than 15%
|
7.0
|
1.7
|
0.0
|
0.5
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
|
Informs/Instructs/
Defines
|
Teachers
give appropriate feedback to groups
|
21.0
|
11.7
|
11.0
|
3.5
|
12.0
|
4.5
|
18.5
|
11.0
|
|
Asks
factual questions
|
Teachers
debrief the collaborative groups at the end of the lesson by making
sure they learned essential information
|
7.5
|
14.0
|
26.0
|
18.0
|
17.5
|
12.0
|
13.0
|
5.0
|
|
Stimulates
higher order thinking
|
Teachers
raise frequency of asking students higher order thinking questions
|
15.5
|
16.0
|
10.0
|
10.5
|
9.0
|
4.5
|
3.0
|
7.5
|
|
Makes
connections
|
Teachers
assist students in relating or applying information
|
9.0
|
11.7
|
6.5
|
12.5
|
2.5
|
2.0
|
3.0
|
2.5
|
|
Gives
specific feedback
|
Teachers
offer information to students in group settings
|
15.5
|
12.0
|
16.5
|
18.0
|
0.0
|
13.5
|
3.0
|
0.0
|
|
Talks
about multiple abilities
|
Teachers
give multiple abilities treatment
|
3.0
|
4.3
|
0.0
|
3.5
|
17.0
|
14.0
|
0.0
|
9.0
|
|
Assigns
competence
|
Teachers
instill confidence in their students various abilities
|
0.0
|
4.0
|
8.5
|
7.0
|
5.5
|
12.0
|
14.0
|
7.5
|
|
Talks
about roles
|
Teachers
discuss collaborative group roles with students
|
0.0
|
8.0
|
6.5
|
5.5
|
12.0
|
9.0
|
17.0
|
16.0
|
|
Talks
about cooperative norms
|
Teachers
discuss behavior norms engendered by CI tasks
|
14.0
|
7.7
|
3.5
|
9.0
|
6.5
|
6.5
|
17.0
|
13.5
|
|
TEACHER
OBSERVATIONS CATEGORIES
|
Description
|
T5
Initial Visit (%)
|
T5
Final Visit (%)
|
T6
Initial Visit (%)
|
T6
Final Visit (%)
|
T7
Initial Visit (%)
|
T8&9
Final Visit (%)
|
T8
Initial Visit (%)
|
T9
Final Visit (%)
|
|
Facilitates
students' work
|
Teachers
become a resource during CI task rather than "rescue"
students by telling them what to do to complete task
|
22.0
|
13.5
|
4.5
|
8.5
|
18.0
|
9.0
|
10.0
|
18.0
|
|
Disciplines
|
Teachers
discipline less than 15%
|
4.0
|
0.0
|
12.0
|
12.0
|
14.0
|
0.0
|
73.5
|
29.0
|
|
Informs/Instructs/
Defines
|
Teachers
give appropriate feedback to groups
|
19.0
|
11.5
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
15.0
|
30.0
|
6.5
|
10.0
|
|
Asks
factual questions
|
Teachers
debrief the collaborative groups at the end of the lesson by making
sure they learned essential information
|
22.0
|
26.5
|
11.5
|
16.5
|
12.0
|
22.5
|
3.5
|
7.5
|
|
Stimulates
higher order thinking
|
Teachers
raise frequency of asking students higher order thinking questions
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
12.5
|
11.0
|
5.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
|
Makes
connections
|
Teachers
assist students in relating or applying information
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
3.5
|
10.0
|
5.0
|
5.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
|
Gives
specific feedback
|
Teachers
offer information to students in group settings
|
4.0
|
0.0
|
15.0
|
16.5
|
15.5
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
|
Talks
about multiple abilities
|
Teachers
give multiple abilities treatment
|
7.0
|
2.0
|
2.5
|
2.5
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
11.5
|
|
Assigns
competence
|
Teachers
instill confidence in their students various abilities
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
12.5
|
8.5
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
|
Talks
about roles
|
Teachers
discuss collaborative group roles with students
|
7.0
|
17.0
|
10.5
|
5.5
|
0.0
|
34.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
|
Talks
about cooperative norms
|
Teachers
discuss behavior norms engendered by CI tasks
|
7.0
|
21.5
|
11.5
|
7.5
|
15.5
|
0.0
|
6.5
|
3.5
|
<< Back to Initiatives
|