Tshewang
Rabgay
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study
was to find the effect of using cooperative learning
method on learning achievement and opinion towards science subject of the
seventh grade students at Samtse Lower Secondary School in Bhutan. The subjects
of the study comprised 82 seventh grade students. The study was an experimental
research and pretest-posttest using control and experimental group was adopted.
The research instruments were achievement test, opinion questionnaire, observation
form and lesson plans. Data from test scores, students’ opinion and lesson observations
were analyzed by calculating mean, standard deviation and p-value using paired
samples t-test.
The results of test
score analysis showed that the pretest means of the two groups were not
different but the posttest mean of the experimental group (11.27) was
significantly higher than that of control group (16.01). Students’ opinion
analysis results showed that the means of interest (2.92), understanding (2.99)
and satisfaction (2.81) in the pre-survey increased to high level of opinion on
post-survey (interest 3.83, understanding 3.84, and satisfaction 3.78). The level
of difficulty of the subject decreased from high in the pre-survey (3.87) to
low in the post survey (2.45). The results suggested that there was positive
change in opinion as a result of inclusion of cooperative learning.
Key words: Cooperative Learning method, Science, Learning Achievement,
Education, Bhutan.
1. Introduction
In
spite of the emerging innovative teaching methods, traditional teaching is a dominant
teaching method in teaching science in Bhutan (Sherab, 2008). The drawbacks of
teacher centered learning has led to poor understanding of concepts and has
resulted in poor learning achievements in science tests (Tenzin, et al,
2009). Besides, students have negative
opinion towards learning science. They have low level of interest,
understanding, satisfaction and perceive science as a difficult subject.
Over
the past decades cooperative learning method has emerged as a leading new
approach to classroom instruction. Researchers have revealed that students
learning through cooperative groups have higher academic test scores, higher
self esteem, greater number of positive social skills and greater comprehension
of content and skills they study (Johnson and Johnson, 1994). So, cooperative
learning method would be an alternative to traditional teaching in Bhutan.
However, not many studies have been done to determine the effect of cooperative
learning method in Bhutanese teaching-learning context. Therefore, the objectives
of this study were: 1. To study the effect of cooperative learning method on
the learning achievement of seventh grade students studying science. 2. To
study the effect of cooperative learning method on students’ opinion towards
seventh grade science.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Cooperative
learning
Cooperative
learning is the instructional use of small
groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other's
learning (Johnson and
Johnson, 1994). Kagan (1989), defined
cooperative learning as a teaching arrangement that refers to small,
heterogeneous groups of students working together to achieve a common goal.
2.2 Theories underlying cooperative
learning
(i) The Vygotskian Perspective
The Vygotskian perspective related to cooperative leaning is Zone of proximal development and it formed the
theoretical bases for cooperative learning (Doolittle, 1995). Vygotsky believed
that the process of the cognitive development is dependent on social
interaction and that social learning actually led to cognitive development.
This phenomenon was called the Zone of Proximal Development.
(ii) The
Piagetian Perspective
Piaget believed the cognitive performance in
children is directly associated with the cognitive development stage they were
in. Piaget believed that learning involve the participation of the learner.
Knowledge was not merely transmitted verbally but must be constructed and
reconstructed by the learner (Sigel, 1977).
(iii)
Bandura’s social learning theory
The
social learning theory of Bandura (1977) emphasized the importance of observing
and modeling the behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of others.
Social learning theory explained human behavior in terms of continuous
reciprocal interaction between cognitive, behavioral, and environmental
influences.
(iv) Constructivism
Being student-centered by
nature, cooperative learning owed much credit to Constructivism (Liang, 2002). Constructivism is a philosophy of learning that was
founded on the premise that learning was an active, contextualized process of
constructing knowledge rather than acquiring it (Piaget, 1973 and Papert,
1980).
(v) Dale’s cone of learning
According to Edger Dale (1946),
retention rates arw the highest with teamwork which included (a) discussion
groups: 50%, (b) practice by doing: 75% and (c) teaching others/immediate use
of learning: 90%. As a sharp contrast, the retention rate of the traditional
ways of individual and passive learning like lecturing (5%), reading (10%), and
demonstration (30%) lasted no more than 30 percent.
2.3 Principles of cooperative learning
According
to Johnson and Johnson (1994) there are five principles of cooperative learning
(i) Positive interdependence (ii) Face-to-Face promotive interaction (iii)
Individual accountability (iv) Interpersonal and small group skills (v) Group
processing.
(i)
Positive interdependence
Johnson and Johnson (1987) stated that the heart of cooperative learning
is positive interdependence. Students
in cooperative group depend on each other for ideas, resources and moral
support for the success of the group. They work on a common goal and they must
think that they are linked to each other (Johnson and Johnson, 1989).
(ii) Face-to-face promotive interaction
It
requires children to discuss, share ideas, views and materials, providing and
getting feedbacks, encourage to keep one another highly motivated to complete that
task they are assigned (Johnson and Johnson, 1987).
(iii) Individual accountability
Students in cooperative learning are
responsible for their own and group’s learning. Having small sized group
enhances group accountability because each member will be accountable for
learning (Johnson and Johnson, 1989).
(iv)
Interpersonal and small group skills
Students in cooperative
groups practice and develop teamwork skills like leadership, decision making,
trust-building, communication and conflict management (Johnson and Johnson,
1989).
(v) Group processing
Students
in cooperative groups discuss how well they have achieved the goal,
describe what member actions are helpful and unhelpful and make decision about
how to continue or change (Johnson & Johnson, 1989).
2.4 Related research
Several
studies have examined the effects of cooperative learning methods on student
learning. Humphreys, Johnson, and Johnson (1982) compared cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic strategies in science classes and found that
students who were taught by cooperative methods learned and retained
significantly more information than students taught by the other two methods. Sherman and Thomas (1986) found similar results in a study
involving high school general mathematics classes taught by cooperative and
individualistic methods. Wodarski, Adelson, Todd, and Wodarski (1980) found significant gains
between the pretest and posttest scores in teaching nutrition.
Johnson and Ahlgren (1976) examined the relationships
between students' attitudes toward cooperation, competition, and their
attitudes toward education. The.results of the study indicated that student
cooperativeness, and not competitiveness, was positively related to being
motivated to learn. Humphreys, Johnson, and Johnson (1982) also found that students
studying physical science in a cooperative learning treatment group rated their
learning experience more positively than did students in competitive and
individualistic treatment groups. Tjosvold, Marine, and Johnson (1977) found that cooperative
learning strategies promoted positive attitudes toward both didactic and
inquiry methods of teaching science, and students taught by cooperative
strategies believed they had learned more from the lesson than did students
taught by competitive strategies.
3. Research Methodology
3.1 Research design:
The study was an experimental research and pretest-posttest design using two
groups was adopted.
3.2 Subjects of the study:
Subjects of the study comprised 82 seventh grade students of Samtse Lower
Secondary School. They were divided into two groups-control and experimental.
3.3 Research
instruments: Four research instruments were used:1.
Achievement test 2. Opinion questionnaire 3. Lesson observation form and 4.
Lesson plans.
3.4 Validity and
reliability: A panel of experts assessed the
instruments for validity. They were pilot tested for reliability. The Chronbach’s
alpha reliability coefficient for the questionnaire was 0.83 and for the test
the KR-21 coefficient was 0.75.
3.5 Experiment
procedure: Pretest was administered to the two groups. To
study the opinion, a pre-survey questionnaire was administered to the
experimental group. The two groups were then taught the same topic ‘Sunlight’
using seven lessons. The control group was taught with traditional or lecture
method while the experimental group was taught using cooperative
learning techniques i.e. jigsaw, STAD, roundtable, team-pair-solo and group
investigation. Two science teachers observed the lesson in the experimental
group to study the extent to which the lessons were characterized by
cooperative learning environment. At the end a post test was administered to
both groups and the post-survey opinion questionnaire was administered to the
experimental group.
4. Data Analysis and Findings
The data was analyzed
in three parts 1. Test score analysis, by comparing the scores of the two
groups in terms of mean, standard deviation and p-value using paired samples
t-test. 2. Opinion analysis, by comparing the opinion of two groups in terms of
mean, standard deviation and p-value using paired samples t-test. 3. Lesson
observation analysis using mean and standard deviation.
The results of test
score analysis showed that the pretest means of the control group (8.63) and
experimental group (8.70) were not different but on posttest the mean of the
experimental group (11.27) was significantly higher than that of control group
(16.01).
Students’ opinion
analysis results showed that the pre-survey means of interest (2.92),
understanding (2.99) and satisfaction (2.81) in learning science increased to high
level of opinion (interest 3.83, understanding 3.83, and satisfaction 3.78). The
level of difficulty of the subject decreased from high in the pre-survey (3.87)
to low in the post survey (2.45). The results indicated that students’ level of
interest, understanding, satisfaction increased and perceived learning science
as a less difficult subject as a result of inclusion of cooperative learning.
The results of lesson
observation analysis showed that teacher observers strongly agreed that
cooperative groups were characterized by positive interdependence (mean 4.6:
strongly agree) and individual accountability (4.52: strongly agree). Teachers
agreed that students showed face to face interaction (4.14: agree),
interpersonal and small group skills and group processing (3.77: agree) during
cooperative group activities. In sum, it indicated that the lessons were
carried out in cooperative learning environment.
5. Conclusion
The study drew two
major conclusions:
1.
Cooperative learning increased the learning achievement of seventh grade
science students.
2. Students’
level of interest, understanding, satisfaction increased and students perceived
learning science as a less difficult subject as a result of cooperative
learning.
6. Discussion
The study had two major
findings. The first was that cooperative learning method increased seventh
grade students’ learning achievement. The second was that students’ level of
interest, understanding, satisfaction increased and perceived learning science
as less difficult subject as a result of cooperative learning.
The
first finding was consistent with the findings of Humphrey, Johnson and Johnson
(1982) that students studying physical science by cooperative learning method
learned, retained and scored better than students taught by competitive and
individualistic methods. The finding was also congruent with Wodarski, Adelson, Todd, and Wodarski’s (1980) findings that there were
significant gains between the pretest and posttest scores in teaching nutrition
using cooperative learning method.
A
possible reason to account for such significant gain could be because of the
socially oriented lessons taught and learned through small group interactions
(Vygotsky, 1978). As students interacted, they shared their ideas and point of views,
give and receive support from each member and help each other dig below the
superficial level of understanding of the material they were learning (Johnson
and Johnson, 1990). Teacher observers noted
these behaviors during the lesson and commented:
“...The
classroom environment was completely different. Normally, students hardly talk
but this time we have seen even the quietest student in the class actively
interacting with the group members....” (Teacher B)
Such interaction among
group members could have lead to clear understanding of concepts and retain
them in memory. According to Dale (1946) student retain 50% of what they learn
through discussions and 90% of what they learn by teaching their peers. This mechanism
of cooperative learning could have led to gain in test scores.
Another reason to
account for the gain in test score could be due to the less threatening
classroom environment. Students in the experimental group experienced more freedom
to express their ideas and enjoy the lesson than did control group where
teacher dominated the class. Teacher observer noted the change in learning
atmosphere and commented:
“...The
teacher did not impose any hard rules that would intimidate the students. He
was rather approachable, friendly and caring. In such less threatening class,
students seemed to learn better and enjoy the learning experience...” (Teacher
A)
According to Johnson and Johnson (1990),
when students interact, shared
ideas and point of views, give and receive support from each member and help
each other, it enables them dig below the superficial level of understanding of
the material they are learning.
Other reasons to
account for such gains could be because of the equal opportunity for success in
cooperative learning. Students in a group learnt in the spirit of ‘Sink or swim
together (Johnson and Johnson, 1990) and they made sure that each member has
understood the material they were learning. This was evident as teacher
observers agreed to statements such as ‘Students made sure that all members in
the group had learnt’.
Moreover, several
learning theories also account for the high learning achievement. Since cooperative
leaning has its root in theories of child-centered learning, theories such as
Vygotsky’s (1978) theory of social learning which contends that student
learning depend on social interaction; constructivism which states that student
construct their own knowledge and their learning increases depending on their
involvement; and Edger Dale’s (1948) learning theory which states that student
retain information better when they learn through group discussion and teaching
peers, support the finding.
The second finding of
the study that students’ level
of interest, understanding, satisfaction increased and perceived learning science as a less
difficult subject, was consistent with the findings of Humphreys, Johnson, and Johnson (1982) who found that students
studying physical science in a cooperative learning treatment group rated their
learning experience more positively than did students in competitive and
individualistic treatment groups. It was also consistent
with the study of Tjosvold, Marine, and Johnson (1977) who found that students taught by
cooperative strategies believed they had learned more enjoyably than did
students taught by competitive strategies.
Some possible reasons to account for such change in opinion
could be due to the less threatening and enjoyable learning environment where
students could freely express their ideas and point of
views, give and receive support from each member and help each other dig below
the superficial level of understanding of the material they were learning. According
to Slavin (1995), such learning environment ultimately helps students in
psychological wellbeing and increases the level of interest.
Another reason to
account for such positive change in opinion could be due to the pleasure and
satisfaction students derived from having understood the concepts they learnt.
It was evident from students’ high ratings to statements such as ‘I learn
science concepts by understanding not by memorization’, ‘I am satisfied with
what I learn in science class’, ‘Each science class makes me happier’.
The fun and enjoyable
learning atmosphere can also be attributed to students’ increased level of
interest and satisfaction. The researcher planned quizzes, tests and games at
the end of each group activity to make the lesson interesting. For example, in
a lesson using STAD, students first learned a concept in group and a test was
done but without seeking help from peers. The individual scores were added up
and the total points scored became the score for the group. The group securing
the highest point was rewarded. Students found this activity of cooperative
learning so interesting that even the next lesson had to be conducted using
STAD. It indicated that among the five techniques,
children liked STAD the most.
Besides the two findings, a notable point in
the observation analysis was that the mean of fourth principle of cooperative
learning, interpersonal and small group skills, was lower than that of other
principles. The possible reason for such low mean could be because students
were not experienced in working in cooperative groups. Although group exercises
were conducted before the treatment to make the students familiar among
themselves and socialize with each other, the short period of time the
researcher used for this session might not have been enough for them to be
familiar enough and work with interpersonal and small group skills.
Currently cooperative
learning has been found effective in many countries like Australia, Russia,
Singapore, New Guinea, Ireland and Lebanon, The U.S.A, Canada, Germany,
England, Saudi Arabia, New Zealand, Turkey, Panama, Singapore, Hungary, etc.
Since this study also found cooperative to be effective in teaching grade seven
science in Bhutan, it can be claimed that cooperative learning is not culture
bound and it can well be used in Bhutan as an alternative to traditional
teaching.
However, some limitations of the study may be noted.
Firstly, the subjects of the study were only two classes of the seventh grade
students. Secondly the experiment was conducted within a very short period of
time, just over a month and only 14 lessons were used. Thirdly, the study was
conducted in a semi-urban school and the results might not be generalized to
urban and rural schools where teaching-learning context is quite different.
These factors limit the generalizability of the findings.
7.
Recommendations
7.1 Recommendation for practice: The
study recommended teachers in Bhutan to use cooperative learning method as an
alternative teaching method to teach science.
7.2 Recommendation for further research:
1.
To study the effectiveness of cooperative learning method in other subjects and
other levels of education. 2. This study used variety of
cooperative learning structures like team jigsaw, STAD, group investigation,
roundtable method, team pair solo, etc. Researches may be conducted to study
the effectiveness of each of these techniques.
References
Bandura,
A. Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1977.
Dale,
E. Audio-Visual Methods in Teaching. New York: The Dryden Press, 1946.
Doolittle,
P.E. Understanding Cooperative Learning Through Vygotsky’s Zone of Development.
Southeastern Louisiana University, Colombia, 1995.
Eggen, P.D., and Kauchak, P.D. Strategies and
Models for Teaching. U.S.A: Pearson, 2006.
Humphreys, B., Johnson, R.T., and Johnson, D.W. “Effects of
Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning on Students'
Achievement in Science Class.” Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 1982: 351-356.
Johnson,
D., and Johnson, R. Learning Together and Alone, Cooperative, Competitive and
Individualistic Learning, Needham Heights, MA: Prentice-Hall, 1994.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and
Holubec, E. J. Structuring Cooperative Learning: Lesson
Plans for Teachers. Edina,
MN: Interaction Book, 1987.
Johnson,
D.W., and Ahlgren, A. “Relationship Between Student Attitudes About Cooperation and
Competition and Attitudes Towards Schooling.” Journal
of Educational Psychology, 1976.
Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R.T. Leading the Cooperative
School. Edina, MN: Interaction, 1989.
Johnson,
D.W., and Johnson, R.T. “Social Skills for Successful Group Work.” Educational Leadership, 47(4),
1990: 29-33.
Kagan, S. Cooperative Learning Resources for Teachers.
San Juan Capistrano, CA:Resources for Teacher, 1989.
Liang,
T. “Implementing Cooperative Learning in EFL Teaching: Process and Effects.” Unpublished doctoral thesis,
National Taiwan Normal University, 2002.
Papert,
S. Mindstorm, Children, Computers and Powerful Ideas. New York: Basic books, 1980.
Piaget,
J. To Understand is to Invent. New
York: Grossman, 1973.
Sherab,
K. “Bhutanese Teachers’ Pedagogical Orientation in the Primary Classes (PP-VI): A Factor on Quality of Education.” 11-30,
2009. [Online] Availableat:http://www.pce.edu.bt/cerd/Quality%20of%20Education%20II.pdf,21 March 2012.
Sigel, I. E., and Cocking R. R. Cognitive Development
from Childhood to Adolescence: A
Constructivist Perspective. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1977.
Sherman, L.W., and Thomas, M. “Mathematics Achievement in
Cooperative Goal-Structured High School Classrooms.” Journal of Educational Research, 1986.
Slavin,
R. Cooperative Learning: Theory,
Research and Practice, 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1995.
Tenzin, W., Johnson,
D., and Ramachandran, K. “A Needs Assessment of Science Education in Bhutan.” 2008. [Online] Available at: http://portal.unesco.org/geography/en/files/11198/12396892105Final_Report.pdf/Final%2BReport.pdf,
14 March 2012.
Tjosvold, D., Marine,
P., and Johnson, D.W. “The Effect of Cooperation and Competition on Students Reactions to Inquiry and Didactic
Science Teaching.”
1977. Journal
of Research in Science Teaching, 11(4), 281-288..
Vygotsky,
L. S. Mind in society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1978.
Wodarski, L.A., Adelson, C.L., Todd, M.T., and Wodarski, J.S.
“Teaching Nutrition Teams-Games-Tournaments.” Journal
of Nutrition Education, 1980.
