Abstract
The purpose of this study is to classify the affect that cooperative learning has on student achievement. It is hypothesized that the students who participate in cooperative learning groups will have higher achievement than those students who do not participate in cooperative learning strategies.
Back to Professional Development
Cooperative learning is a method of learning that has become a major part of the academic arena. As more and more research becomes available to improve ways to learn, it is imperative that teachers become educated on effective strategies in an effort to improve student performances. Cooperative learning seeks to create meaningful in-school experience by offering students opportunities to collaborate, converse, and reflect upon important information and often does so by having the groups become teams of investigators or analysts. As students move away from helping each other to simply remembering content and toward the creation of new content, the level of constructivism increases (Vermette & Foote, 2001). This study is significant because of the increasing high demands on teachers to produce students who master the concept of learning. The purpose of this study is to classify the affect that cooperative learning has on student achievement. It is hypothesized that the students who participate in cooperative learning groups will have higher achievement than those students who do not participate in cooperative learning strategies.
Humans are social beings who enjoy interaction. Cooperative learning groups are a way for individuals to use a natural phenomenon to engage in learning. Because good cooperative learning increases the likelihood of student engagement, purposeful talk and meaningful exchanges of ideas, it is a very desirable form of instruction (Vermette & Foote, 2001). Cooperative learning occurs when students work interdependently in groups on academic assignments in order to produce a common product. Research over the past two decades supports the superiority of cooperative over both competitively and individualistically structured classes particularly in student achievement (Johnson & Johnson, 1987, 1989a; Slavin, 1983, 1990). According to Slavin (1985), the benefits of cooperative learning include not only improved achievement and inter-group relations, but also improved self-esteem and more positive attitudes toward school and fellow students. Although the work of Slavin and Johnson date as far back as 1985, current research still relies on the expertise and findings of their research.
Students support and assist each other’s learning through explanation, discussion, and elaboration. The instructor facilitates this process by providing ample time and face-to-face seating to encourage interaction. Although tasks should require interdependence and the participation of all students, each student should be held accountable for completing his or her part of the assignment and for mastering the material. This can be accomplished by observing the groups, randomly calling on group members to answer questions or explain group progress, and having students teach what they have learned to others. Additionally, instructors can use evaluation methods that include individual products and assessment of the individual's contribution to group efforts.
In a research study by Steiner and associates, they find that "cooperative learning strategies can increase retention rates for basic information (the goal of "traditional" education), and can make the classroom a powerful ‘real-world’ environment where students gain experiential understanding of interpersonal interdependence, social skills, group dynamics, conflict resolution, and critical thinking." In further research by Johnson, he defines two different cooperative learning groups: formal cooperative learning consists of students working together, for one class period or several weeks, to achieve shared learning goals and complete specific tasks and assignments (e.g., problem solving, writing a report, conducting a survey or experiment, learning vocabulary, or answering questions at the end of the chapter. Informal cooperative learning consists of having students work together to achieve a joint learning goal in temporary, ad-hoc groups that last from a few minutes to one class period.
Nevertheless, it is the assessment, after the strategy has been implemented, that determines the effectiveness of the strategy. In a study by Leikin and Zaslavsky in which they took students with and without disabilities, and used cooperative learning and computer based instruction to teach mathematics, they found that although students in both cooperative and whole-class groups increased their math skills learning using computer-assisted instruction, a significant difference was obtained on the posttest between the two groups. Moreover, a significant interaction between time of test (pre vs. post) and instructional group (cooperative vs. whole-class) showed that computer-assisted cooperative learning had a great effect on math skills learning when students with and without disabilities were integrated in regular classrooms. Given the premise that the more a student learns (through learning activities), the more he or she achieves, Leikin and Zaslavsky found that the experimental small-group cooperative-learning setting facilitates a higher level of learning activities. Classroom observations of their research indicated an increase in students' activeness. Students spent much more time actively involved in the experimental cooperative setting.
The current study is based on a research by Feldhusen, Dai, & Clinkenbeard. In their research, they hypothesize that students are intrinsically and extrinsically motivated during the competition aspect of cooperative learning, which causes greater achievement. The results of the study suggest that a given mode of learning, be it competition or cooperation, could potentially produce differential effects among gifted students, depending on how they perceive and interpret the situations and how they construe the task goals in the learning situations. This does not mean that students' preferences determine their motivation and learning outcomes and should dictate our teaching methods (Feldhusen, Dai, & Clinkenbeard 2000).
The population of students will consist of all Algebra I students at JA Fair High School. The sample will be selected by choosing two classes taught by the same teacher with the same number of students. All students in the sample will be in the 9th grade, and will have at least one year of Pre-Algebra. Since no names will be used in this study, a consent form is not necessary to do the research. All of the students will be given the same paper-and-pencil pretest prior to instruction. The data will be recorded in a table and posted.
For one complete unit, a unit being defined as a chapter or series of chapters that deal with a specific concept of algebra, the teacher will use the direct instruction method in one class, and use cooperative learning method in the other class. The students will receive the same in-class handouts and get the same feedback on the handouts. The classroom will have the same number of seats; however, there will be a different arrangement for each of the two methods of instruction. The same specific lessons will be taught on the same days and the students will receive the same homework assignments. Following the unit, a paper-and-pencil achievement test will be given to both classes. The scores will be recorded and posted.
The independent variable in this study will be the method of instruction given in each of the classrooms, that being the direct instruction method in one class and cooperative learning method in the other class.
The dependent variable in this study will be the results of the scores of the paper-and-pencil achievement test. The term paper-and-pencil test means that a standard set of questions is presented to each subject in writing (on paper or computer) that requires completion of cognitive tasks. The responses or answers are summarized to obtain a numerical value that represents a characteristic of the subject. The cognitive task can focus on what the person knows (achievement), is able to learn (ability or aptitude), chooses or selects (interests, attitudes, or values), or is able to do (skills) (McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S. 2001).
The data in this quantitative study will be collected using a pretest-posttest nonequivalent control group design. This design is very prevalent and useful in education, since it is often impossible to randomly assign subjects. The researcher uses intact, already established groups of subjects, gives a pretest, administers the treatment condition to one group, and gives the posttest.
The most serious threat to the internal validity of research conducted with this design is selection; that is, because the groups may differ in characteristics that affect the dependent variable, the researcher must address selection and provide reasonable arguments that this threat is not a plausible rival hypothesis (McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S. 2001).
As far as this investigation is concerned, these students will be a selection of students that have produced work on the same level (i.e. gifted-students etc.). In the event that characteristics that are not accounted for are observed ‘in the beginning stages’ among students, the posttest scores will be adjusted on the basis of initial measured group characteristics (i.e. pretest). The selection is further explained above in the "Method" section. The limitations are illustrated in its entirety in the final section of this proposal.
A data analysis has to do with statistical techniques. A statistical technique is selected on the basis of appropriateness for investigating the research question and/or hypothesis; nothing is gained by using a complicated technique when a simple one will suffice.
In terms of the proposed research, there are many research situations in which a mean from one group is compared with a mean from another group to determine the probability that the corresponding population means are different. The most common statistical procedure for determining the level of significance when two means are compared is the, t-test. The t-test is a formula that generates a number, and this number is used to determine the probability level (p level) of rejecting the null hypothesis.
Therefore, the data in this situation will be analyzed using a t-test and presented using an ANOVA table. Of course, ANOVA is simply an extension of the t-test. Rather than the researcher ‘s using multiple t-tests to compare all possible pairs of means in a study of two or more groups, ANOVA allows the researcher to test the differences between all groups and make more accurate probability statements than when using a series of separate t-tests (McMillan, J.H., & Schumacher, S. 2001).
The limitations of this research that can be identified at this time are minimal. The most threatening is the general ability of the research due to the sample size. The sample in this study cannot delineate or justify the effects of cooperative learning on achievement to all Algebra I students. Every student in every cooperative learning group cannot be observed at all times. However, the assumption that the teacher in this study has mastered the cooperative learning strategy can be made. Therefore, implementation is valid.
