THE EFFECTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING...

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the cooperative learning

approach of Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) on the achievement of

content knowledge, retention, and attitudes toward the teaching method. Cooperative

learning was compared to noncooperative (competitive) learning classroom structure

using a quasi-experimental design. An achievement test, consisting of items from the

state competency test-item bank for the course, and an attitude questionnaire were

administered immediately following instruction on the unit of special nutritional needs. A

retention test was administered three weeks following the achievement test. California

Achievement Test scores and first semester grades in home economics classes were used

as covariates to adjust for possible preexisting differences between the groups.

Multivariate analysis of covariance showed no significant difference among the

dependent variables (achievement and retention) between the teaching methods used.

There was also no significant difference in student attitudes toward the teaching methods.

Teachers have the option of structuring lessons competitively, individualistically, or

cooperatively. The decisions teachers make in structuring lessons can influence students'

interactions with others, knowledge, and attitudes (Carson, 1990; Johnson & Johnson,

1987. In a competitively structured classroom, students engage in a win-lose struggle in

an effort to determine who is best (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). In competitive classrooms

students perceive that they can obtain their goals only if the other students in the class fail

to obtain their own goals (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1986). Students in

independently structured classrooms work by themselves to accomplish goals unrelated

to those of the other students (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). In a cooperative learning

classroom students work together to attain group goals that cannot be obtained by

working alone or competitively. In this classroom structure, students discuss subject

matter, help each other learn, and provide encouragement for member of the group

(Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1986).

Cooperative learning, as an instructional methodology provides opportunities for students

to develop skills in group interactions and in working with others that are needed in

today's world (Carol, 1988; Imel, 1989; Kerka, 1990). According to Johnson and Johnson

(1989), cooperative learning experiences promote more positive attitudes toward the

instructional experience than competitive or individualistic methodologies. In addition,

cooperative learning should result in positive effects on student achievement and

retention of information (Dishon & O'Leary, 1984; Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Slavin,

1991). According to McKeachie (1986), students are more likely to acquire critical

thinking skills and metacognitive learning strategies, such as learning how to learn, in

small group cooperative settings as opposed to listening to lectures.

Theoretical Framework, Conceptual Base, and Related Literature

According to Slavin (1987), there are two major theoretical perspectives related to

cooperative learning -- motivational and cognitive. The motivational theories of

cooperative learning emphasize the students' incentives to do academic work, while the

cognitive theories emphasize the effects of working together.

Effect of cooperative Learning

Statement of the Problem

While cooperative learning as an instructional methodology is an option for teachers, it is currently the least frequently used (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). More than 85% of the instruction in schools consists of lectures, seatwork, or competition in which students are isolated from one another and forbidden to interact (Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, & Roy,1984). Goodlad (1984) reported that most classroom time is spent in "teacher talk", with only 1% of the students' classroom time used for reasoning about or expressing an opinion.Group work has been used extensively in home economics to provide practice in acquiring both competence and skills in interpersonal relations. The introduction of cooperative learning strategies in home economics has potential for improving the group activities commonly used in these classes (Hall & Paolucci, 1972). While empirical evidence supports the use of cooperative learning with a variety of subject areas and age groups, the extent to which these methods are beneficial in home economics education is unknown. Without empirical evidence to support the effectiveness of cooperative education in home economics, it is likely to be ignored as an instructional methodology by home economics educators. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the cooperative learning approach of Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) on the achievement, retention of information, and attitudes toward the instructional method of selected home

economics students. The following research questions provided the specific focus for the study:

1. Was there a difference in achievement, as measured by the researcher developed achievement test for students who have been taught by the cooperative learning method, STAD, and those who were taught by noncooperative methods?

2. Was there a difference in retention of information, as measured by the researcher developed retention test administered three weeks after the end of instruction for students who have been taught by the cooperative learning method, STAD, and those who were taught by noncooperative methods?

3. Was there a difference in the attitudes toward the teaching method used for students who have been taught by the cooperative learning method, STAD, andthose who were taught by noncooperative methods? Research Methods and Procedures The population for this study consisted of home economics students enrolled in a Food and Nutrition course in high schools in the central region of North Carolina. Four schools that offered two or more sections of the food and nutrition course agreed to participate in the study. The design of study was quasi-experimental with 91 students in the cooperative learning (STAD) group and 106 students in the non-cooperative learning group.

According to Hays (1973), samples of this size would allow the researchers to detect differences between the treatment groups larger than 0.50 standard deviations at an alpha level of .05 and a desired power of .90. Once classes from each participating school wereidentified, they were randomly assigned to cooperative and noncooperative treatment groups. In order to account for possible pre-existing differences in overall ability between the treatment groups, California Achievement Test scores and first semester grades in home economics were used as covariate measures. In order to control for the "teacher quality" variable, both groups were taught by the regular home economics teachers who were provided inservice in the use of STAD by an expert on cooperative learning. Teachers were also provided detailed instructions for conducting learning activities in both the cooperative and noncooperative groups. Both groups were taught the nutrition unit using

the same content outline, but students in the cooperative learning group completed learning activities in small heterogeneous groups, while the students in the no ncooperative group completed activities individually. The unit was taught to both groups over a two-week period. An instrument to measure student achievement and retention was developed from items related to the unit of instruction in the state-adopted competency test-item bank. Content validity of the items was assessed at the time they were developed for the test-item bank, and was verified by home economics teachers, a home economics teacher educator, and a state consultant for home economics. Items related to each instructional objective were selected for the instrument.The instrument was pilot tested to establish reliability in a school not selected to participate in the study. The Kuder-Richardson coefficient of internal consistency for the instrument was .87. The test was administered to both groups at the end of the instructional unit. Three weeks later, the test was administered again to the students to determine retention of information. The instrument used to measure attitudes toward the method of instruction was developed and used in a similar study by Flowers (1986/1987). Content validity of the attitude instrument was established by faculty at the University of Illinois who had experise in the

development of attitude instruments. The instrument had a coefficient of internal

consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) of .89. The attitude instrument was administered at the

end of the unit of instruction.

Group and Individual Performance

Group and Individual Performance

The relationship between group and individual performance in cooperative or collaborative learning is not well understood. Slavin's work on cooperative learning emphasizes the role of individual accountability. His techniques depend on group rewards that are earned by each student in a team when performance is improved. In Slavin's work, therefore, there is continuity between individual and group performance. However, the question of the relationship between group and individual performance is often unexamined. The issue of what factors transfer from a group to subsequent individual performance is not well understood. Part of the difficulty in addressing this issue comes from the variability of approaches to peer learning, as the importance or relevance of this issue varies across approaches. Nevertheless, because of the prevalent use of cooperative and collaborative techniques in schools, the increases in high-stakes testing, and the concerns of parents in relation to their children's involvement in collaborative experiences, the relationship of individual and group performance warrants consideration.Teachers who wish to use cooperative and collaborative leaning to promote students'achievement need to be thoughtful in considering the implications of their decisions about group size, rewards, group composition, and their own role in the classroom. The variety of theoretical perspectives available to inform such decisions can be confusing.Fundamentally, cooperative learning that promotes student achievement depends on the quality of student interaction. Such interaction needs to be task oriented, helpful, characterized by deep processing of content that involves organization or restructuring of knowledge, and elaboration of that knowledge. Making decisions about group size, for example, becomes simpler if the teacher focuses on the expected quality of interaction among students. Large groups limit participation while smaller groups provide more opportunities for interaction. Other decisions such as the composition of the group will also be informed by a focus on the quality of interaction. If the group is of mixed ability, other interventions may be needed to maintain the quality of participation (such as the use of question stems or other ways of structuring the interaction to maximize quality) or to guarantee the inclusion of all participants.

Cooperative and collaborative learning

Cooperative and collaborative learning are instructional contexts in

which peers work together on a learning task, with the goal of all participants benefitingfrom the interaction. Cooperation and collaboration can be treated as synonymous, as atruly cooperative context is alwayscollaborative.Varied perspectives on collaboration and their implications for classroom instruction will be described here, and a number of cooperative techniques involving dyads or larger groups will be outlined, including the costs and benefits associated with them in terms of cognitive or affective outcomes.Finally, the relationship between group and individual performance will be addressed.Theoretical Perspectives on Collaboration In 1996, Robert Slavin described a variety of perspectives on peer learning, including social psychological, sociocultural, cognitive-developmental, and cognitive-elaboration approaches. Explanations of how and what peers can learn from one another differ. Angela O'Donnell and James O'Kelly note that classroom decisions a teacher makes in relation to cooperative or collaborative learning depend on the theoretical approach adopted. Social-psychological approaches suggest that the interdependence among group members is the underlying mechanism for effective cooperation. Interdependence is created by using group rewards or by encouraging social cohesion and a norm of caring and helpfulness. From a cognitive-developmental perspective, effective peer learning occurs as a result of processes of cognitive conflict and resolution, or through the modeling of skilled behavior.A sociocultural perspective would suggest that the joint knowledge of the group membersis greater than the individual knowledge of any member and that the group operates as an interacting system. In contrast, a cognitive-elaboration approach suggests thatcollaboration enhances student learning by providing a context in which individual learning is promoted by the use of more effective learning processes. In other words, an individual learns better with a peer because the peer provides an audience, prompts more metacognition, or maintains an individual's focus on a task. In creating and using collaborative groups for instructional purposes, teachers' decisions about the size and composition of groups, the kinds of tasks on which students will work, whether or not they should use explicit rewards, and the particular stance to take in relation to the collaborative groups will be influenced by the theoretical perspective that the teachers adopt.

Cooperative Learning Methods

Cooperative learning is one of the most widespread and fruitful areas of theory, research,

and practice in education. Reviews of the research, however, have focused either on the

entire literature which includes research conducted in noneducational settings or have

included only a partial set of studies that may or may not validly represent the whole

literature. There has never been a comprehensive review of the research on the

effectiveness in increasing achievement of the methods of cooperative learning used in

schools. An extensive search found 164 studies investigating eight cooperative learning

methods. The studies yielded 194 independent effect sizes representing academic

achievement. All eight cooperative learning methods had a significant positive impact on

student achievement. When the impact of cooperative learning was compared with

competitive learning, Learning Together (LT) promoted the greatest effect, followed by

Academic Controversy (AC), Student-Team-Achievement-Divisions (STAD), Teams-

Games-Tournaments (TGT), Group Investigation (GI), Jigsaw, Teams-Assisted-

Individualization (TAI), and finally Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition

(CIRC). When the impact of cooperative lessons was compared with individualistic

learning, LT promotes the greatest effect, followed by AC, GI, TGT, TAI, STAD,

Jigsaw, and CIRC. The consistency of the results and the diversity of the cooperative

learning methods provide strong validation for its effectiveness.v