**OVERVIEW**

Team-assisted individualization

was designed to counter the heterogeneity of the classroom. The program was

specifically designed to teach math to students in grades 3 through 6 or to

teach older students who are not ready for algebra. There were no significant

improvements in high-achieving students using this program. In all studies,

except one about high-achieving students, TAI groups were significantly more

likely to have higher math achievement scores than control groups. Also, TAI

groups were more likely to enjoy math class, and were less likely to have

behavior problems than the control group. The TAI group did not have a

significantly greater score on attitude toward school than the control group in

one study.TAI showed significantly higher

scores on liking math for 2 studies, self confidence, negative peer behavior,

friendships, classroom behavior, and math achievement for 2 studies (nonsignificant

for 1 study). One study showed significant increases in math computation scores

for the TAI condition over the control condition. In one study, TAI showed

significantly higher scores than an individualized instruction curriculum for

self confidence and for classroom behavior, but there were no significant

differences between the two groups on liking math, negative peer behavior,

friendships, or math achievement.

**DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM**

**Target population:**

Elementary school students

Team-assisted

individualization (TAI) combines cooperative learning and individually-paced

instruction. In cooperative learning, a small, heterogeneous group of students

learn together at the same pace and are rewarded based on performance of the

members. Such a setting allows students who are further along to help students

who are lagging behind. In individually-paced instruction, students work on

their own packets at their own pace. Students either grade their own work or the

teacher grades it when they finish. When a sufficient number are correct, they

may move on to the next exercise.

TAI combines these two

approaches by having students work in groups of two or three on an assignment at

their skill level. They work on a certain number of problems and grade one

another’s work. Then they take a quiz, the quiz is graded by a teammate and then

reviewed by one of three student monitors. After the student monitor approves

the quiz, he or she hands out a final test and scores it after completion.

Students are also rewarded for positive scores on their work.

**EVALUATION(S) OF PROGRAM**

**Slavin, R. E., M. B. Leavey,
et al. (1984). “Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction:
effects on student mathematics achievement, attitudes, and behaviors.” **

*The Elementary School Journal 84*(4): 410-422.

**Evaluated population: **Students in grades 3-5

This study evaluated TAI using

two different populations. Study 2 was not a randomly assigned experiment, so we

focus on Study 1 in this writeup. In Study 1 (N=504), the students were from a

middle-class suburban Maryland school district. Eighty percent of the students

were White, 15% Black, and 5% Asian-American. Twenty-three percent of the

students were receiving some kind of special instruction (6% for a severe

learning disability and 17% for reading or speech issues). The sample came from

18 classes in six schools.

**Approach:**

The six schools were randomly assigned to one of

three conditions: TAI, individualized instruction without student teams, or a

control condition. Students were subject to the treatments for eight weeks in

the spring of 1981.

The authors examined three main

outcome measures: mathematics achievement, attitudes, and behavior ratings.

Items assessing attitudes toward math examined how much students like math class

(for example, “This math class is the best part of my school day”) and students’

math self-concept (measured by questions like “I’m proud of my math work in this

class” and “I worry a lot when I have to take a math test”). Teacher ratings of

student behavior contained four subscales, which were classroom behavior,

self-confidence, friendships, and negative peer behavior.

**Results:**

For all outcomes, the children in the TAI condition

performed more positively than the control group, regardless of pretest scores.

The TAI group had significantly higher mathematics scores, were more likely to

enjoy math class, and were less likely to have behavior problems than the

control group.

The TAI performed better than

the individualized instruction for two out of the seven outcomes: classroom

behavior and self-confidence.

**Slavin, R. E. and N. L.
Karweit (1985). “Effects of whole class, ability grouped, and individual
instruction on mathematics achievement.” **

*American Educational Research Journal 22*(3): 351-367.

**Evaluated population:**Students in 22 grade 3-5 classrooms (N=480)

around Hagerstown, Maryland were involved in this experiment. Ninety-one percent

of students were White, 7% Black, and 2% Asian-American.

**Approach:**

Classrooms were randomly assigned to four conditions:

the Missouri Mathematics Program (MMP), Ability Grouped Active Teaching (AGAT),

Team-assisted individualization (TAI), and a control.

The authors measured mathematics

achievement using two standardized tests. Students’ attitudes were measured

using students’ self-reports. Liking of math class was assessed by questions

like “this math class is the best part of my school day” and self-concept was

assessed by questions like “I’m proud of my math work in this class” and “I

worry a lot when I have to take a math test.” To measure implementation of the

treatment condition, the teachers were observed to ensure that they were using

the critical features of their treatments

**Results:**

Students under the TAI condition were significantly

more likely to enjoy math. The TAI condition had significantly higher math

achievement scores than the control condition. There were no significant results

for treatment differing by various achievement levels, by gender, or by race at

baseline. For example, whites did not have a greater increase in math

achievement than blacks. Those who had lower scores at baseline and therefore

more room to grow did not show a greater increase in math achievement than those

with higher scores at baseline.

**Karper, J. and S. A.
Melnick (1993). “The effectiveness of team accelerated instruction on high
achievers in mathematics.” **

*Journal of Instructional Psychology 20*(1).

**Evaluated population:**Students in grades 3-6 were evaluated. The

samples consist of students in the Derry Township School District in Hershey,

Pennsylvania, a small, affluent district with higher than average achievement.

For studies one (N=504) and three (N=1,371), grades 3, 4, and 5 were used. For

study two, grades 4, 5, and 6 were used. Studies four and five did not have a

control group.

**Approach:**

Students were randomly assigned to one of four

classrooms: two teaching with TAI and two using traditional mathematics

instruction. Some students were not randomly assigned because of Gifted Program

placement.

Two main outcomes were measured:

standardized student achievement scores and students’ attitudes toward school.

**Results:**

No significant differences were found between the

experimental and control groups at posttest for mathematics achievement or

attitudes toward school. Also, it is important to note that for the students’

attitudes toward school, only 100 cases were useable. The authors report that

all five studies showed significant increases in math computation scores for the

TAI condition over the control condition.

**SOURCES FOR MORE INFORMATION**

**References:**

Karper, J. and S. A. Melnick

(1993). “The effectiveness of team accelerated instruction on high achievers in

mathematics.” *Journal of Instructional Psychology 20*(1).

Slavin, R. E. and N. L.

Karweit (1985). “Effects of whole class, ability grouped, and individual

instruction on mathematics achievement.” *American Educational Research
Journal 22*(3): 351-367.

Slavin, R. E., M. B. Leavey,

et al. (1984). “Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction:

effects on student mathematics achievement, attitudes, and behaviors.” *The
Elementary School Journal 84*(4): 410-422.

**KEYWORDS: **Middle Childhood (6-11), Adolescence

(12-17), Children, Elementary School, Suburban, Education, Behavioral Problems, Education, Self-Esteem/Self-Concept,

Mathematics, White or Caucasian, Black or African American.

*Program information last
updated 5/19/09*