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.