As educators embrace the collaborative/cooperative group strategies, the question arises as to the best way in which to group students together. The most common strategy is to group by ability level and to change that group composition regularly (Leonard & McElroy, 2000).

In the 1930’s, the mother-daughter team of Katharine C. Briggs and Isabel Briggs Myers developed the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). It was the result of more than 20 years of research based on the works of Carl Jung and his theories on psychological type-preferences (Adventure Associates, 2001):

The MBTI is a valid psychological test that is administered and results explained by a trained practitioner (Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2002, p.1). The MBTI instrument consists of four pairs of psychological preferences to identify a person’s psychological type.

Extraversion-Introversion: Indicates how a person is motivated.

Sensing-Intuition: Describes how people like to take in information.

Thinking-Feeling: Describes how a person likes to make decisions based on information taken in.

Perceiving-Judging: Describes how a person makes his or her decision.

(Myers & Briggs Foundation, 2002, pp.1-2).

The True Colors personality test uses colors, blue, green, orange, and gold, to represent four general temperaments, or personalities. The goal is to determine the dominant temperament category for an individual. Questions fall into four distinct categories and each category is assigned a color. In general, each color represents one or more of the four temperaments or personalities. The first color, blue, represents the Harmonious/Idealist; these individuals work well with others, adapt well to varying situations and tend to be dramatic. The second color, green, represents the Curious/Rational; these individuals work best alone, enjoy problem solving, and value fairness and justice. The third color, orange, characterizes the Adventurous/Artisan; they like action, adventure, hands-on activities and are natural trouble-shooters. Finally, the fourth color, gold, identifies the Responsible/Guardian; this personality type is steadfast, strong, loyal, follows rules and respects authority (Kirby et al.).

Within the four main temperaments as described above, Keirsey also discusses six personality types that are useful in classifying individuals.

Sensors: are practical, detailed and realistic.

Intuitives: are innovative, imaginative, and see the big picture.

Thinkers: are logical, and unemotional.

Feelers: are more likely to emote their feelings, and their personal outlook is more subjective.

Judgers: like set plans, closure and certainty; they are goal-oriented and time-oriented.

Perceivers: are laid back and postpone decisions; for them time is not an issue (Kirby et al.).

In the dominant tempermants, Blues and Greens tend to be Intuitives, while Oranges and Golds tend to be Sensors. How one gathers information or makes decisions are the variables that separate the Intuitives into colors Green and Blue: Greens tend to be thinkers and Blues tend to be feelers; Golds and Oranges can either be Thinkers or Feelers (Kirby et al.)

What people base their decisions on is the variable that separates the Sensors into the colors Gold and Orange: Golds tend to prefer judging and Oranges tend to prefer perceiving; Blues and Greens can be either (Kirby et al.).

True Colors makes no distinction between extraversion and introversion. In the True Colors test, a person can be represented by any color, can be either extroverted or introverted. As a result, it is possible to end up with an entire group of introverts or extroverts.

William and Lynn Kirby stated in their paper on True Colors:

associated with the Myers-Briggs. It is popular in school and work

True Colors can help K-12 teachers to be more aware of their own characteristics and to understand the characteristics of others. By understanding the personality types, teachers can identify student temperaments and thus facilitate complementary grouping strategies for project-based learning.

Bridging cooperative learning with collaborative learning is important for both new and experienced educators. It can help in broadening their awareness of the variety of approaches and hopefully increase their interactions among scholars with different educational philosophies.

With regard to comprehension skills in the areas of math and language arts, a study of elementary students has shown that those who used educational computing software in an after school computer club did better than students who were not involved in the after-school program. Researchers used a multiple-choice test which tested students on comprehending word problems, following directions, and language skills. Although the results of this research indicated that technology did provide some important cognitive changes for the participating students, Mayer concluded, "Our research provides encouraging evidence that appropriate experience with educational technology can promote important cognitive changes in children. More research is needed to pinpoint how productive learning takes place with educational technology" (Mayer, Schustack, & Blanton, 1999, p.31).

In another study, the development and progression of teamwork involving groups of middle school students was observed while they were engaged in a technological task. Workshops were developed at junior high schools in Israel that blended physics with technology in developing hot-air balloons (Barak & Maymon, 1998). The researchers found that students who are intellectually challenged while applying their new knowledge to a real-world situation become highly motivated. The groups may compete against each other, or they may offer to help each other thus forming one collective group for the entire class. The combination of technology and teamwork provided an experience similar to a real-world working environment (Barak & Maymon). Businesses and corporations rely heavily on technology and teamwork within their organizations. As teachers embrace technology and collaborative strategies, they are providing the foundational tools that working America will be looking for in the 21^st century.

Historically, research into children’s behavior began in the late 1930s with investigations into how children worked together in groups. One study divided students into three groups: one group had an autocratic adult leader, one had a democratic adult leader, and the third group had no adult leader. Researchers found that the group which was allowed to organize its own agenda under the democratic adult leader (a cooperative learning approach) was far more productive and independent in their work than the other two groups (Mueller & Fleming, 2001).

Piaget discussed the success of cooperative groups in attaining their objectives with regard to the child’s inner need to work with others. Piaget stated "Instead of taking into account the child’s deeper psychological tendencies which urge him to work with others---our schools condemn the pupil to work in isolation and only make use of emulation to set one individual against another" (Piaget, 1932, p.286). This inner need to approach tasks or projects as a group seems to be a natural inclination of most humans. Affirmation, acknowledgement, guidance and the sharing of resources are all benefits resulting from cooperation.

Educators use cooperative grouping as a way to increase the successes of their students without promoting competitiveness on an individual level: "The research clearly indicates that cooperation, compared with competitive and individualistic efforts, typically results in higher achievement and greater productivity, more caring, supportive, and committed relationships, and greater psychological health, social competence, and self-esteem" (Johnson & Johnson, 1989, p.2).

In one research study, three groups were observed in a fifth grade classroom. Data were collected using a category system that analyzed student behavior in small cooperative learning groups. The categories that were developed included whole class introduction, group task, group dynamics, and whole class wrap-up. The researchers observed variations across the groups and how this related to their interactions with the teacher (King, Taylor, & Maloney, 1991).

Constructivist learning operates on the principle that the student is coming to the learning environment with prior knowledge. In addition, new ideas are acquired from peer collaboration and subsequently the student’s knowledge base has grown. The social interactions of students act as a vehicle for knowledge construction and expansion (Gagnon, Jr. & Collay, 1996). This in turn supports the collaborative/cooperative learning environments. Studies by Piaget have indicated that there are strong tendencies in children to work with each other (Piaget, 1932). The primary message of constructivist learning is that students who are engaged in active learning are making their own meaning and constructing their own knowledge in the process (Gagnon, Jr.& Collay).

Jacqueline Grennon Brooks and Martin G. Brooks discussed constructivism in the classroom (Brooks & Brooks, 1993). They stressed the importance of valuing the students’ responses even when the response differs from the teacher’s perspective. They also noted that when teachers value students’ individual constructions of meaning, the students benefit from being allowed to explore endless possibilities in the way that they understand concepts. Teachers utilizing constructivist principles can encourage students to answer questions other than the ones being posed by the teacher. They emphasized that teacher education needs to be structured around constructivist principles and practices so that constructivism can be easily incorporated into every classroom.

Constructivist learning works well with Web-based activities. Students entering this environment bring with them their prior knowledge. They engage in a Web-based activity such as searching the Internet, gathering information, organizing their thoughts, or communicating with peers via email thus adding to their cognitive infrastructure (Vail, 2001).

Web-based learning allows the student to work with other students outside of the traditional classroom, gathering and generating new knowledge. Having expanded their knowledge, students are now capable of integrating and merging this information into a new construct either individually or in cooperative groups (March, 1995).

Technology projects that utilize web page development, slide shows, and/or video/audio, allow for variations in student presentations. The Web-based approach provides a platform that gives the student much more control/co-ownership of the final product. As a result of Internet resources and powerful software applications, students are much more willing to learn and are more apt to make changes to their projects (Oliver, 2000).

Connections between schools and other learning environments need to be in place so students can see real-world relevancy. Online resources can provide alternative learning opportunities not provided by their school. For example, students can take AP courses not offered in most small schools (Vail, 2001, p. 13).

In Web-based learning, teachers must be attentive to the learning environment in which their students work. When projects and/or tasks have meaningful context for the students, advancing their knowledge base becomes less of a forced issue (Hung, 2001). The Web-based environment is conducive to customizing student learning because teachers can keep track of a learner’s history, profile and progress. This knowledge provides the teacher with the necessary tools to individualize student learning. In a web-based environment, teachers need to consider a student’s prior knowledge when developing web-based activities. This prior knowledge can be used to provide a framework that is familiar to the student and allows them the opportunity to build and increase their knowledge base. In a successful web-based environment, time must be allowed for collaborative activities so students can communicate their ideas and personal knowledge with their peers: "Web-based learning environments should create structural dependency between individuals in which novices need more capable peers, capitalizing on the Zone of Proximal Development" (Hung, 2001, p.37).

Internet resources provide students with access to facts, graphics, and expert advice, and enable them to communicate with peers in different environments. For students to be successful in navigating this cosmos of data, teachers must address students’ questioning skills and techniques (March, 1997).

There are two types of WebQuests, short-term (one to three days) and long-term (one week or more). Short-term WebQuests can introduce students to a vast amount of information while seeking quick feedback from the student in a concise manner. A long-term WebQuest will expose the student to vast amounts of information while seeking deeper and more thorough understanding from the student. Typically, the information obtained will be presented by the student in such a way that they are now the expert and are relaying the information to an audience for further discussion and analysis (Dodge, 1997).

Collaborative/cooperative learning techniques have been shown to be an invaluable set of tools in today’s classroom environment. As teachers, we are faced with the complexities of grouping students together so that they will be successful in group project work. "Type" sorters, such as "True Colors," provide an alternative grouping strategy allowing the placement of students into groups based on personality types. In our own action research project, we focused on using small cooperative groups in a web-based learning environment.