REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

59 CHAPTER – II REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE 2.0 INTRODUCTION Man, the thinking being, can take advantage of the knowledge preserved and accumu...
Author: Sharyl Cross
4 downloads 0 Views 342KB Size
59 CHAPTER – II

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE 2.0

INTRODUCTION Man, the thinking being, can take advantage of the knowledge preserved and

accumulated through the centuries since the origin of the universe. Human knowledge has three phases: preservation, transmission and advancement. Research takes advantage of the knowledge accumulated in the past as a result of constant human endeavour. It can never be undertaken in isolation of the work that has already been done on the problems which are directly or indirectly related to a study proposed by a researcher. Practically, all human knowledge is really conserved in books and libraries to help the scholars probe further into the fathoms of knowledge. A careful review of the research journals, books, dissertations, theses and other sources of information does step up in the planning process of any research study. A literature review is usually a synthesized critique of the status of knowledge on a carefully defined educational topic. Research is a careful investigation in search of new facts in any branch of knowledge involving the application of a scientific method in the study of the problem. It offers a systematic attempt to obtain answers to meaningful questions. A review of literature helps the investigator in selecting and defining the problem, formulation of hypotheses and interpreting the data. Thus, the importance of related literature cannot be denied in any research. The related literature not only guides with regard to the quantum of work already done and available in the field but also enables the researcher to identify the gaps in the concerned area of research. The survey of related literature is a crucial aspect of planning a study. It promises an indepth understanding of the problem undertaken for investigation. Review of literature serves as a link between the research proposed and the corps of knowledge already available in a particular field. Review of related literature is thus an essential prerequisite for planning and execution of research work. It entails search for reference material and familiarity with relevant literature to discover what is already known, what others have attempted, which methods have been promising or disappointing and which problems remain to be solved (Best and Kahn, 1989).

60 An attempt has been made here to examine the related literature vis-a-vis the problem in hand, namely, “A Comparative Study of the Effectiveness of StudentTeams Achievement Divisions (STAD) and Jigsaw Methods of Cooperative Learning”. The review of related literature and research studies has been divided into different sections along the main variables under study, that is: 2.1

Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning on Learning Outcomes.

2.2

Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning on the Development of Selfconcept.

2.1

2.3

Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning in Mathematics.

2.4

Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning in Other School Subjects.

EFFECTIVENESS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING ON LEARNING OUTCOMES This section can be discussed under two sub-headings, that is, Studies done

abroad and Studies made in India. 2.1.1

Studies done Abroad Anderson, Johnson, Johnson and Johnson (1976) conducted research on 30

fifth graders to know the effect of structuring classroom learning cooperatively and individualistically on students ability to appreciate the effective perspective of others’ altruism, attitudes towards classroom life and achievement. The students were matched on previous achievement in language arts. The even-numbered students were assigned to individualized condition while the other, odd-numbered students were placed in the cooperative condition No competition between groups or between persons was structured into the evaluation. The results indicated the cooperative learning as compared to individualized learning resulted in greater ability to take the affective perspective of others for more altruism, more positive attitude towards classroom life and higher achievement. Skon (1979) compared the effect of cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning situations on students’ achievement and reasoning processes on the following tasks: categorization and retrieval, metaphor interpretation and story

61 problems on 86 first grade students. The findings revealed that on the categorization and retrieval and the metaphor interpretation tasks subjects in the cooperative condition had higher achievement scores than did subjects in the competitive and individualist conditions. High, medium and low ability subjects in the cooperative condition used higher quality reasoning processes than did high, medium and low ability subjects in the competitive and individualistic conditions on three of those tasks. On the free recall measure of the categorization and retrieval task, cooperation and individualism did not affect the relative performances of high, medium and low ability students in the competitive and individualistic conditions on three of the tasks. Sharan, Ackerman and Hertz-Lazarowitz (1979) compared the academic achievement of 198 pupils of two through six grades taught in the small cooperative groups against that of 109 pupils of two through six grades taught in the traditional whole-class approach. The findings revealed that those children of second, fourth and six grades who studied in cooperative small groups received significantly higher scores on high level question than did pupils from traditional classroom. Third and fifth grade pupils revealed a trend in favour of small group classrooms but the trend did not reach statistical significance. On low level questions, pupils in the second grade small group classrooms significantly excelled their counterparts, whereas in third through six grades, no significant difference was found between cooperative small groups learning and whole class instruction. Webb (1982) reviewed focuses on the role of the students experience in small group interaction in learning. The study examined three aspects of small group learning: (1) the relationship between interaction and achievement; (2) cognitive process and social-emotional mechanisms bridging interaction and achievement; and (3) characteristics of the individual, group, and reward structure that predict interaction in small groups. The study found that an individual’s role in group interaction is an important influence on learning, and that interaction can best be predicted form multiple characteristics of the individual, group and setting. Johnson, Johnson, Tiffany and Zaidman (1984) conducted a study to see the impact of intergroup cooperation and intergroup competition on the cross-Ethnic

62 relationship. Intergroup cooperations and intergroup competitions were compared to determine if they promoted systematic differences in interaction between majority and minority students. Fifty-one fourth grade students were assigned to conditions on a stratified sampling basis controlling for minority status and sex. Study was conducted for 55 minutes a day for 10 instructional days. The results revealed that intergroup cooperation promoted more inclusion of minority students and more crossethnic relationships. Webb (1984) investigated the effects of small group gender composition on interaction and achievement in classroom settings and found that in groups in which gender and ability were balanced (i.e. high-medium-low ability groups being similar interaction patterns and nearly identical achievement results. However, in groups in which gender was imbalanced (majority male or majority female but with similar ability means), the female’s experiences were detrimental to their achievement. In majority male groups, the females tended to be ignored as males focused their attention on other males and in the majority female groups, the females focused much of their attention on the males to whom they gave more help than they gave to other females. Hall, lee Ellis (1988) worked on a meta-analysis of the effects of cooperative learning on achievement and presented a vote analysis of the effects of cooperative goal structures on academic achievement, based on some forty- four studies with 86 conclusions included in the vote analysis besides thirty-seven studies with 135 effects sizes included in the meta-analysis. The vote analysis indicated no statistically significant difference between cooperative and traditional goal structures. The metaanalysis indicated that the effect of cooperative learning on achievement differed in regard of study, grade level and subject. Bak, Byung-Gee (1993) worked on meta-analytic integration of the relationship between co-operative learning and achievement. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate the effect of cooperative learning (CL) on students ‘achievement using Hedges’ meta-analytic approach, to extract the essential components of CL, and to identify the moderators of CL. Major findings from 73 independent studies could be summarized as follows:-

63 First, CL methods are effective for students’ achievement i.e. the scores of the average individual in the cooperative learning group exceed that of over 60% of individuals in the control groups. Second, analysis of essential components of CL showed that if would be desirable to implement cooperative learning using a moderate degree of individual accountability, a high degree of individualistic learning indicated that it is possible to improve pupils’ abilities to read news stories in an actual newspaper by instructing them in writing news stories in an actual newspaper by instructing them in writing news stories for a class newspaper. The findings led this researcher to the major conclusions that this treatment may cause pupils to have (a) positive changes in their newspaper habits; (b) favorable perceptions about the effectiveness of instruction in writing news stories upon their ability to read news stories; and (c) improved ability to read news stories in an actual newspaper. Stevens and Slavin (1995) conducted a 2-year study on the cooperative elementary school model which used cooperation as an overarching philosophy to change school and classroom organization and instruction processes. The components of the model include: using cooperative learning across a variety of content areas, full scale mainstreaming of academically handicapped students, teachers using peer coaching, teachers planning cooperatively, and parent involvement in the school. The results of this study support the hypothesis that cooperative learning can be the primary mode of instruction and when integrated with effective instruction in reading, language arts, and mathematics and with changes in school organization, peer coaching, mainstreaming and other elements can be effective in producing higher student achievement. After the first year of implementation students in cooperative elementary schools had significantly higher achievement in reading vocabulary. After the second year, students had significantly higher achievement in reading vocabulary, reading comprehension, language expression and math computation than did their peers in traditional schools. After 2 years, academically handicapped students in cooperative elementary schools had significantly higher achievement in reading vocabulary, reading comprehension language expression, math computation and math application in comparison with similar students in comparison schools. There also

64 were better social relations in cooperative elementary schools, and handicapped students were more accepted socially by their non-handicapped peers than were similar students in traditional schools with pull-out remedial programs. The results also suggest that gifted students in heterogeneous cooperative learning classes had significantly higher achievement than their peers in enrichment programs without cooperative learning. Qin, Johnson and Johnson (1995) compared the impacts of cooperative and competitive efforts on problem solving. The study examined 46 studies, published between 1929 and 1993 to resolve the controversy over whether cooperative learning promotes higher or lower-quality individual problem solving than does competition. The findings from these studies were classified in four categories according to the type of problem solving measured: •

Linguistic (solved through written and oral language);



Nonlinguistic (solved through symbols, math, motor activities action);



Well defined (having clear definition, operations, and solutions); and



Defined (lacking clear definitions, operations and solutions). The 63 relevant findings that resulted were subjected to a meta-analysis for

purposes of integration. It was reported that members of cooperative teams outperformed individuals competing with each other on all 4 types of problem solving (effect sizes = 0.37, 0.72, 0.52, 0.60 respectively). The results revealed the superiority of cooperation however it was greater on nonlinguistic than on linguistic problems. McManus and Gettinger (1996) examined the teachers’ use and evaluation of cooperative group learning along with students’ reactions to working in groups and their verbal interactive behaviours during group activities and found positive academic, social and attitude outcomes in the classrooms. Majority of student interactions were directly related to teaching and learning. Behaviours such as listening to another student or watching a student demonstrate how to complete a task occurred most frequently during group activities. Jordan and Metais (1997) identified the lack of social skills on the part of some school students is one contributory factor in student misbehaviour. The study

65 suggested that cooperative learning contributes to the fostering of social skills in students of all ages. A ten-week programme of cooperative learning was implemented in a class of 10-12 year –olds, to develop their social skills alongside their academic skills. It was found that as a result of programme social interactions became noticeably more varied and students agreed to work in assigned groups, even when they did not like some members of the group. Interpersonal relationships between students and teacher improved considerably for the isolated students. Antil, Jenkins, Wayne and Vadsy (1998) examined the prevalence, conceptualization and form of cooperative learning used by elementary teachers. Survey was conducted and data indicated that 93% of teachers (n=85) from six elementary schools in two districts used cooperative learning methods. Interviews conducted with a sub-set of those teachers (n=21) all indicated having daily cooperative lessons in several subjects. It was found that majority of teachers subscribed to cooperative learning to achieve both academic and social learning goals, structured tasks for positive interdependence, and taught students skills for working in small groups. It was further highlighted that primarily, few teachers were employing recognized forms of this practice, because they did not tie individual accountability to group goals. Prinz (1998) studied the conditions in college students of various ability levels. They learn best when they are assigned randomly to one of three cooperative learning conditions homogenous (where all students in a small group were of same ability level), heterogeneous (where high, medium and low ability students were placed into small groups placed in small groups). Findings revealed (i) No significant difference in performance outcomes for students in the three grouping conditions (narrow range, heterogeneous and homogeneous). (ii) No significant difference for attitude towards learning and students perception that the presence of other in the group enhanced their learning (iii) A significant interaction effect was noted for student’s preference for learning alone with low and high ability students in the narrow-range grouping conditions less interested in working individually; and (iv) students in the narrow-range grouping condition who did not believe in the group process to be helpful.

66 Wilson (1998) investigated the ability of general education middle school students to prompt and reinforce the functional academic skill acquisition of peers with moderate to severe disabilities in the context of content area cooperative learning instructional settings and found that the general education students learned to provide the identified opportunities, prompt sequences and reinforcement to their peer with disabilities after a brief training session and ongoing in classroom feedback. Analysis of the grades achieved by the tutors indicated that the tutoring responsibilities had little or no negative impact on their attainment of classroom skills. Williamson (1999) studied whether the presence of embedded meta-cognitive cues facilitates learner interactions and improves attitudes towards cooperative learning during the cooperative computer based lesson and studied the effects of ability grouping and group interactions on the sample of 120 sixth-grade students assigned by ability to one of three group compositions homogeneous high-ability, low-ability or heterogeneous Verbal interactions were audio taped while social and management interactions were recorded MANOVA and univariate ANOVA related that learners in the cued treatment had significantly different achievement post-test scores, exhibited more on task behavior, and socialized less than learners in the noncued treatment. Significant differences for ability groups were found only on the achievement post-test and for management interactions. Homogeneously grouped low-ability tended to have lower achievement post-test scores. In addition homogeneously grouped low ability learners and the heterogeneously high ability group. There was no significant difference in attitude towards cooperative computer based instruction for either treatment or group composition. Gillies (1999) conduced a 1-year investigation on whether children, who had been trained in the previous year to cooperate, were able to use the skills they had been taught in reconstituted groups without additional training on 64 fourth graders, who had participated in training in cooperative group behaviours in the previous year, were assigned to the trained condition, 84 fourth graders, who had not received any training, were assigned to the untrained condition. Results indicated that the children in the trained groups were consistently more cooperative and helpful than their peers

67 in the untrained groups, although they had not received refresher training in cooperative group behavious. Stepka (1999) examined the difference in academic achievement among students under two teaching strategies; Jigsaw cooperative learning method and the lecture method at a rural community college and found that overall, the Jigsaw cooperative and section scored higher than the lecture section when compared academically. Klein and Schnackenberg (2000) investigated the effect of informal cooperative learning and the affiliation motive on achievement, attitude and students interactions. Study involved 122 under graduate education majors classified as high or low need for affiliation used either an informal cooperative learning strategy or an individual strategy while receiving and instructional television lesson (ITL). Results indicated that participants who used the individual strategy acquired significantly more continuing motivation for working alone than those who used the informal cooperative strategy. Results also revealed that high affiliation participants expressed significantly more continuing motivation than low affiliation participants for working with another person. Low affiliation participants expressed significantly more continuing motivation than high affiliation participants for working alone. Furthermore, results indicated that high affiliation dyads exhibited significantly more on-task group behaviors (taking turns, sharing materials, group discussion of content) and significantly more off-task behaviours than low affiliation dyads. Veenman, Kenter & Post (2000) examined the use of and evaluated cooperative learning methods by 60 Dutch primary teachers (grades 1-8) and investigated the reactions of 363 pupils to cooperative grouping and the quality of the group cooperation. In the study, teachers reported that cooperative learning occurred in their classrooms about 4 times a week. Questionnaires completed by teachers indicating that social skills, on task behavior, and pupil self esteem improved as a result of having pupil work in groups. Further pupils reported a positive attitude towards cooperative group learning and rated their work in groups as effective. Half of the teachers reported problems with the monitoring of the cooperative groups.

68 Results showed that the time-on-task levels of the pupils working in groups to be high, but effective learning and cooperation was not promoted. The teachers devoted little time to the teaching of group work skills. Jensen, Johnson and Johnson (2002) examined the effects of positive interdependence vs no interdependence on students’ academic achievement. The study included 151 US College students (aged < 18 – 30 years) who took weekly electronic quizzes on which they could interact with group-mates in a chat room. In the positive interdependence condition, one member was chosen at random, and his or her score was given to all members of the group whereas in the no interdependence condition, each group member received his or her own score on each quiz. The finding of the study conveyed that students in the positive interdependence condition engaged in significantly more interaction and more promotive interaction while taking the electronic quizzes and achieved higher scores on the subsequent examinations taken individually. Gillies (2002) investigate the effect of training in small-group and interpersonal behaviours on children’s behaviour and interactions as they worked in small groups 2 years later. 52 fifth-graders, who had been trained 2 years previously in cooperative group behaviour were assigned to the trained condition and 36 fifth graders, who had not previously been trained were assigned to the untrained condition the results showed a residual training effect, with the children in the trained groups being more cooperative and helpful than their untrained peers. Onwuegbuzie, Collins and Elbedour (2003) investigated the role of group composition ranging on in size from 2 to 7 cooperative learning groups. The sample consisted of 275 graduate students of introductory level education research course. The analysis revealed (1) Positive relationship between degree of group heterogeneity at the mid-term level and scores on the research proposed; (2) Relationship was found between group size and performance on the article critique however, no relationship emerged involving scores on the research proposal scores. Peterson and Miller (2004) compared the experiences of college students during cooperative learning and large group instruction to discuss how they could

69 apply important psychological principles to teaching-learning projects, under graduate education psychology students were assigned to small groups. During cooperative learning and large group instruction perceptions of their experiences with experience sampling method were measured. It was found that overall quality to experience was greater during cooperative learning benefits occurred specially for thinking on task, student engagement, and perceptions to task importance, and optimal levels of challenge and skill. Study revealed that students were more selfconscious and reported more difficulty concentrating during cooperative learning. Rondinaro (2004) studied the relationship between interpersonal multiple intelligence and the usage of cooperative learning teaching methods on the sample of 103 teachers and revealed the following: i.

No significant relationship between interpersonal multiple intelligence and the usage of cooperative learning teaching methods.

ii.

Elementary school teachers had a significantly more positive attitude towards cooperative learning than high school teachers, and

iii.

The longer one teaches, the more negative he/she is regarding cooperative learning than the lesser he/she uses this teaching method. Hancock (2004) investigated the effects of graduate students peer orientation

on achievement and motivation to learn cooperative learning strategies while enrolled in a 1- semester educational research methods. The study comprised to 52 graduate at a large, state supported university in the with high and low peer orientation, enrolled in an educational research methods course. The average age of the participants was 34.12 years (SD = 8.6) seventy on percent of the participants were women. During 15 weekly lessons (2hr and 50 min each), subjects were exposed to cooperative learning instructions

that

involved

face

to

face

promotive

interaction,

positive

interdependence, individual accountability enforces by group members, collaborative skills, and group processing. The results of the study revealed that difference in the achievement of students with high and low peer orientation were not statistically significant. However, students with high peer orientation were significantly more motivated to learn than were students with low peer orientation.

70 Olivera and Straus (2004) investigated the effects of group collaboration on member learning in a laboratory experiment. Hypothesis tested were based on theoretical ideas from research on cooperative learning that groups provide opportunities for transfer of learning to individuals and that arise during groups interaction. In experiment, eighty-six students solved puzzles either individually, in groups, or individually while observing a group. Findings based on the analysis of subsequent individual performance on a transfer task showed that participating in or observing a group caused transfer of learning, whereas working alone did not. Furthermore, results suggested that transfer of learning occurred mainly due to cognitive, but not social, factors. Williams, Devon (2004) suggested that colleges and universities can improve intergroup relations on campus by implementing a cooperative learning technique known as the jigsaw classroom. Study involved an argue as that use of the jigsaw classroom would facilitate a re-categorization process by which members of racialethnic groups other than one’s own (them) would begin to be seen as being members of a more inclusive, “We”. The study included an examination of on-campus racial discrimination a discussion was made on some social psychological work and ultimately found that jigsaw classroom has the potential to reduce this type of discrimination. Blair and Millea (2004) studied the impact of cooperative education on student Academic performance specifically; the study examined the effect of cooperative education on grade point average, length of time in school, and starting salary. Statistical analysis revealed that cooperative education programs have significant effects on all three measures. These measurements were useful not only to students deciding whether to participate in cooperative education programs, but also to universally administrators seeking to assess program effectiveness. Veenman, Denessen, and Vanden (2005) conducted a study to examine the effects of a teacher training program on the elaborations and affective-motivational resources (i.e. intentions and attitudes towards help seeking help giving and achievement goals) of students working on a cooperative task. Study sample included

71 teachers from seven primary schools and 24 dyads of sixth-grade students. The findings of the study showed moderately positive effects on use of elaborations among the treatment dyads. Dyads with experience in cooperative learning achieved more than dyads without such experience. Mastery and performance oriented goals were negatively related to use of high-level elaborations was positively related to student achievement. Ghina Hassan (2005) investigated the question of whether Jigsaw is more effective than whole class instruction in improving learners' reading achievement and motivation. The participants were 44 grade five students in a private school in Lebanon. The students were randomly assigned to control and experimental conditions and a post-test only control group design was employed. The experimental group was instructed according to the dynamics of the Jigsaw II method whereas the control group was taught according to whole class instruction. The treatment lasted for eight weeks. Two post-tests GMRT and MRP were administrated at the conclusion of the study. The GMRT assesses two dimensions of reading comprehension: a) vocabulary acquisition and b) reading comprehension. The MRP assesses two dimensions of reading motivation a) reading self-concept and b) reading value. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted to compare the results of both groups. The treatment with two levels (control and experimental) was the factor, and reading comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, reading self-concept, reading value and reading motivation were the dependent variables. Results indicated that Jigsaw had a significant effect on students' self-concepts as reader, the value they place on reading and their reading motivation. However, no significant differences were found in favor of Jigsaw II on the variables of vocabulary acquisition and reading comprehension. Hijzen, Bockaerts and Vedder (2006) examined relationships between the quality of cooperative learning (CL) and student’s goal preferences and perceptions of contextual factors in the classroom. Sample consisted of 1920 students studying in secondary vocational schools. The study focused on four different types of goals; social support, belongingness, mastery and superiority goals. It was found that social support goals had the strongest relation with the quality of CL and further it was

72 found that the quality of CL was best predicted by a combination of social support goals, evaluations of the extent that students were taught cooperation skills, perception of the teachers monitoring behaviour, and the availability of academic and emotional peer support. It was concluded that female students preferences for mastery and social goals were stronger than those of male students, whereas male students had a stronger preference for superiority goals. Lai, C.Y. and Wu, Cheng-Chih (2006) reported about the study of implementation of handheld wireless environment to support Jigsaw cooperative learning activities in a college setting. A quasi-experimental research design was conducted to investigate the effects of using handhelds, as well as issues associated with the use of handheld technology. In the experiment study sample consisted with two intact classes of fourth-semester students from a five-year junior nursing college. Findings revealed that handheld tools enhanced both student’s attitude and performance in learning, and promoted better interactions between students and instructions. Furthermore reported that handheld technology does prove to the not sophisticated enough to support cooperative learning goals without the support from a technology specialist. Summing up (Global Scenario) In brief, cooperative learning resulted greater ability for altruism, (Anderson, Johnson, Johnson and Johnson, 1976), higher achievement (McManus and Gettinger, 1996; Skon, 1979; Bak, Byung-Gee, 1993; Blair and Millea, 2004 ), increase in selfconfidence (Nederhood, 1986), higher self-esteem (Ali, 1999) increase in intrinsic motivation and beliefs about success (Lin, 1997, Good, Reys, Grows and Mulryan, 1989), higher Self-appraisal of their performance and higher perceived efficacy (Chang, 1998). Second, fourth and sixth graders received high scores when learned in cooperative small groups (Sharan, Ackerman and Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1979). CL integrated with school/classroom climate fosters higher achievement (Stevens and Slavin,1995). Individual’s role in group interaction influenced achievement in learning (Webb, 1982), intergroup cooperation promoted inclusion of minority students and

73 cross-ethnic relationship (Johnson, Johnson, Tiffany and Zaidman, 1984).

In small

group gender interaction, female experienced detrimental to achievement (Webb, 1984). Positive interdependence enhances interaction chatting and achievement (Jensen, Johnson and Johnson, 2002). Students in cooperative learning groups showed increase in number of friends, liking of others (Slavin, 1980 and Nederhood, 1986), increase in interactive behaviours and skills: listening and watching (Nowak, 1996; McManus and Gettinger, 1996) and increase in group effectiveness and interpersonal interactions (Earley, 1997). Peer orientation significantly more motivates to learn (Hancock, 2004). More students in cooperative condition perceived themselves as giving help to and received help from peers (Cooper, Johnson, Johnson and Wilderson, 1980; Gillies, 2002). Fourth and fifth graders trained in CL maintain more cooperative behavior than their untrained peers (Gillies, 1999, 2002). Group size has relationship with performance in CL (Onwuegbuzie, Collins and Elbedour, 2003) News making skills like reading and writing news stories improved in cooperative learning (Bak, Byung-Gee, 1993). Elementary teachers relish small group CL skills (Antil, Jenkins, Wayne and Vadsy, 1998). Social skills, on task behavior and pupil self-esteem improved as a result of having pupil work in groups (Veenman, Kenter & Post, 2000). CL inculcates social skills (Jordan and Metais, 1997), problemsolving skills (Din, Johnson and Johnson, 1995) and helps peer learning (Wilson, 1998). Students with high peer orientation in CL motivated more to learn than students with low peer orientation (Hancock, 2004). CL groups cause transfer of learning (Olivera and Straus, 2004). Jigsaw classroom reduces racial discrimination at university and colleges (Williams, Devon, 2004) and impacts grade V students’ reading skills better than in whole classroom situations (Ghina Hassan, 2005). Quality of cooperative learning in secondary vocational schools impacts social support goals among girls and superiority goals of boys (Hijzen, Bockaerts and Vedder, 2006). Jigsaw CL activities

74 enhance performance and attitude among nursing college students (Lai, C.Y. and Wu, Cheng-Chih, 2006). College students in various ability groups learn best by CL (Prinz, 1998). Under-graduate affiliation needed variation in CL (Klein and Schnackenberg, 2000). In rural community college Jigsaw CL method scored higher than traditional method (Stepka, 1999). Primary teachers reported problems with the monitoring of cooperative groups (Veenman, Kenter & Post, 2000). College students in CL experienced more selfconciousness and difficulty (Peterson and Miller, 2004). 2.1.2

Studies made in India Tripathy (2004) investigated cooperative learning as a method of promoting

learning through student cooperation rather than competition and considered it as a method of effectively using student groups in a classroom. The primary elements involved in this strategy of teaching science were positive interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face interaction with peers, use of pro-social skills and group processing of a given academic task by the learners, the role of teacher being that of an academic consultant. Teaching-learning of difference between metals and non-metals by modified cooperative learning method was suggested after a tryout in real classroom situation. In a cooperative learning system, students were divided into groups and they worked together to master an assigned lesson. Groups were heterogeneous, with one high level child, one or more children identified as with special educational needs and others of various abilities. Each group member was assigned a role for that lesson. The findings of the study revealed that students who were working in groups were more likely to stay on task and remain motivated because of peer support and encouragement. Working together is good as it does a lot to increase self-esteem and reduce normal peers rejection, which is so important for peer support and encouragement. Cooperative group learning induces cooperative attitude in the learners, which in the long run, has the potential of carry over into other areas of the competitive world.

75 Pushpanjali and Satyaprakasha (2010) investigated that cooperative learning is a broad phrase for an effective approach to education and it was a classroom learning environment in which students could learn in mixed ability heterogeneous groups on academic tasks. An attempt was made to find out the effectiveness of cooperative learning strategy on achievement motivation and anxiety of class VIII students of Bangalore city. The findings of the study were: a)

Cooperative learning strategy was more superior to conventional method in significantly promoting achievement motivation.

b)

Cooperative learning strategy was effective in significantly reducing the anxiety.

Summing up Indian Scenario In brief, students working in groups stay more on task and remain motivated because of peer support and encouragement (Tripathy, 2004). Cooperative learning environment promotes achievement motivation and reduces anxiety among eighth graders (Pushpanjali and Satyaprakasha, 2010). 2.1.3

Overview (Cooperative Learning) This review of the literature available on cooperative learning reveals that the

range of researches conducted on its various aspects and their effects are quite considerable. Although there is no complete unanimity of opinion, a vast majority of researchers agree that cooperative learning can provide answers to many of the questions faced by educators, parents, students and provide evidence of the effectiveness of cooperative learning in raising the achievement level of the learners. The claims of the advocates of cooperative learning that students can achieve higher if they receive education through cooperative learning procedure seem to stand vindicated by a large number of the researchers. Improvement in cognitive outcomes shows its consequences in the form of improved self-esteem of the students. The evidences, both objective and subjective, of their achievement change their view of themselves and the people and things around them. The development of success builds in pupil’s sense self-confidence, a desire to learn more and work systematically in order to achieve higher. The development of positive self-esteem in turn leads to

76 higher motivation, deeper interest that the overall effects of cooperative learning on student self-esteem, peer-support for achievement, liking of class and/or classmates and intergroup relations are positive. It suggests that the use of cooperative learning methods can go a long way in improving relationships between mainstream students of different racial or ethnic groups and between mainstream students and their normal progress classmates. It also emerges from this brief survey that the number and range of studies conducted to examine the effectiveness of cooperative learning methods in Indian situation are limited, leaving much scope for further research. Cooperative learning promotes achievement motivation, longer stay on task and reduces anxiety which ultimately will be very useful in the Indian classroom. 2.2

EFFECTIVENESS

OF

COOPERATIVE

LEARNING

ON

THE

DEVELOPMENT OF SELF-CONCEPT 2.2.1

Studies Done Abroad Bonaparte, E.P.C. (1989) investigated the effects of cooperative versus

competitive classroom organization for mastery learning on the mathematical achievement and self-esteem of 240 urban second-grade pupils attending schools in the middle Atlantic Region of the United States. Analysis of covariance with a nested design was utilized to ascertain the effect of classroom organization on mathematical achievement and self-esteem at the .05 level. Three factors were used in this nested design: method, classes/teachers nested under methods and ability. A Pearson Product-Moment Correlation was employed to determine if there was relationship between achievement in mathematics and self-esteem. It was reported that the cooperative-mastery learning/STAD form of classroom organization was superior to the competitive-mastery learning form of classroom organization. A significant interaction effect was also found. It further revealed a significant correlation between achievement in mathematics and self-esteem. Glassman, Phyllis (1989) conducted a study of cooperative learning in mathematics, writing and reading in the intermediate grades with a focus upon achievement, attitude and self-esteem by gender, race and ability group. A quasiexperimental design with random assignment of teachers to experimental and control

77 groups was employed. The sample included 441 students in two sub-urban intermediate schools on Long Island. Related to achievement, a statistically significant difference was revealed favouring the treatment group in writing specially ideas in writing. Additionally, statistically significant differences were found favouring the cooperative learning group with respect to attitudes toward reading and perceived abilities in reading. Girls in the treatment group evidenced gains in mathematics and boys in the experimental group revealed enhanced social selfconcept. Scott, Thomas, J. (1989) investigated the effects of cooperative learning team vs traditional classroom/resource room instruction on handicapped students’ selfesteem and academic achievement. The purpose of this study was to see if Cooperative Learning Teams (CLT) provides an effective mainstreaming mode. More specifically, this study examined the effect of the CLT model vs the traditional “pull out” resource model on the self-esteem and academic achievement of handicapped students in grades three and four. Twenty-one learning disabled students in the CLT treatment remained in the regular education classroom setting for the entire day with their non-handicapped peers. For approximately 60% of each day students were instructed to work cooperatively in small groups to complete assignments. The control group consisted of 22 LD students who were the mainstreamed part of the day but also pulled-out of the regular classroom to supplement special education instruction in resource rooms. Students were tested at the beginning and end of the school year in reading, mathematics and self-esteem. In addition, 48 classroom observations were conducted. The observations indicated that the treatments were implemented properly. Analysis of covariance was performed on 23 depended measures. Significant difference (p Middle > Low (Sheng, 1990). Cooperative learning improved IX-XI graders’ social skills and interaction (Earley, 1999). Cooperative learning in chemistry improved achievement in topics discussed and later in topics not discussed (Sparks, 1999). Cooperative learning strategies not more time consuming than traditional instruction in physical education of VI graders (Barett, 2000). STAD and jigsaw performed better among college graders in English as foreign language than Grammer-translation method and males performed better (Chen, 2004). 2.4.2

Studies made in India Ahuja (1994) studied the effectiveness of the use of a cooperative learning

instructional strategy on academic achievement, attitudes towards science class and process skills of seventh graders. The sample consisted of 116 students (48 in control group and 68 in experimental group). Findings from the ANCOVA on post-test scores indicated that the use of cooperative learning instructional strategy results in greater academic achievement and better attitudes towards science class. The process skills were not influenced by the instructional strategy. Responses from the interview of six students (who were purposefully selected on the basis of their responses on the attitudes checklist) corroborated the findings that a cooperative learning experience was looked upon more favorably by seventh class science students, who found that it improved their perceptions of science, made science learning more fun and improved their learning. Pandey and Kaushal Kishore (2002) conducted a study on the effect of cooperative learning on cognitive achievement in science. This study examined the effect of one of the methods of cooperative learning—STAD on achievement in science of ninth grade students. Objective was to find out the difference between traditional method of teaching and STAD technique of cooperative learning method. Result of this study was that STAD was more effective than traditional method for knowledge level as defined by Bloom's taxonomy. However, both the methods were found to be equally effective for comprehension level.

114 Geed, Passi and Dube (2003) compared the overall achievement of students to the cooperative learning environmental group with those of the traditional learning environment group in English. The samples comprised of 70 students of class IX, 35 in each group. The achievement test included four sections namely- reading, writing, grammar and literature. Results indicated the following. 1.

Experimental group scored better in the Reading section than the control group.

2.

No significant difference was found between experimental and control group in writing section.

3.

No significant difference was found between experimental and control literature when compared to the control group.

4.

Experimental group showed better understanding and retaining in literature when compared to the control group.

5.

Presentation of group work was better in experimental group when compared to control group who were assigned groups only for the project.

6.

Overall achievement of experimental group was significantly higher than that of control group. Prakash Satya C.V. and Patnaik S.P. (2005) conducted a study on the effect of

co-operative learning on achievement motivation and achievement in Biology. Objectives were: to find out the effect of cooperative learning on achievement motivation and achievement in Biology. Findings were: there was a positive effect of co-operative learning on achievement motivation. Co-operative learning has a positive effect on achievement in Biology in terms of knowledge, understanding and application objectives as well as total achievement. Yaibua (2005) studied the effect of multimedia CAI through cooperative and individualistic learning conditions on a sample of 50 students of Diploma Course in Electronics in relation to Persistence. The following conclusions were made: i.

The multimedia CAI in cooperative learning situation yielded higher achievement gain means that multimedia CAI in individualist learning situations;

115 ii.

The multimedia CAI in cooperative learning situation yielded higher achievement gain means than in conventional group learning, and

iii.

Through multimedia CAI in cooperative learning, the High, Average or Low Persistence students did not differ in their achievement gain means. Hemant Lata Sharma and Savita Sharma (2009) studied the effectiveness of

the learning in small groups i.e. STAD, under cooperative learning method over conventional method in learning Geography at elementary school level and also compared the achievement of High, Average and Low Achievers. The sample comprised of 80 pupils studying in two sections of the VII class of S.R.S. Sr. Sec. School, Rohtak. The two researchers studied the impact of cooperative learning strategy on learning outcomes, interpersonal relationships and self-esteem of elementary school students who studied Geography for 55 days. Results revealed the following: i.

The post test achievement mean scores of the experimental and control groups, controlling of intelligence and socio-economic status, differ significantly in favour of the experimental group. This implies that the students who were taught social studies through Student-Teams Achievement Division (STAD) under cooperative learning have shown significant improvement in their achievement in social studies than the students who received instruction through traditional method.

ii.

The group of students taught social studies trough Student-Teams Achievement Division (STAD) under cooperative learning have shown significantly higher mean gain in achievement than the group of students taught Social Studies through traditional method.

iii.

The performance of High, Average and low Achievers were equal when taught through STAD under cooperative learning method than the group of students taught through traditional method In brief, cooperative learning improved VII grade students’ perception,

attitude, achievement and learning of science as joyful (Ahuja, 1994). STAD was more effective for cognitive achievement in science but equal in comprehension

116 among ninth graders (Pandey and Kaushal Kishore, 2002). Cooperative learning found no difference in writing and literature but better for understanding, retaining literature, reading, group work and overall achievement (Geed, Passi and Dube, 2003). Cooperative learning improves achievement as well as achievement motivation in Biology in knowledge, understanding and application (Prakash Satya C.V. and Patnik S.P., 2005). CAI through cooperative learning yielded higher achievement in Diploma course in Electronics, irrespective of high, average and low persistence (Yaibua, 2005). STAD improves seventh grade students’ achievement in social studies (Hemant Lata Sharma and Savita Sharma, 2009). 2.4.3

Overview

A. Cooperative Learning in Mathematics A review of research studies reveals that in cooperative learning settings student have shown increase in academic achievement in mathematics at different levels. This is supported by various studies. Webb (1982, 1982b) conducted study on seventh and eighth and ninth grades, Williams (1988) with senior high school students taking algebra course, Scanlan (1988) and Lin (1997) with fifth graders, Good et.al.(1989) with small groups in whole class settings, Mulryan(1989) with fifth and sixth graders, Berg (1992) with eleventh graders, Hopp(1994) with eighth graders, Nichols (1994) with high school geometry students, Nowak (1996) with Kindergarteners, Watson (1996) and Lucas (1999) with college algebra students. Whicker, Bol and Nunnery (1997), Harish (2011) with secondary school class, Chang (1998) with sixth graders, Ponnusamy and Sudarsan(2001) with upper primary level, Carlan, Rubin, and Morgan (2005) with fifth graders, Bosfield (2004) with fifth grades Thangarajathi and Viola’s (2007) with high school level, Mehra and Thakur(2008) with seventh graders, Surinder Kaur and Aruna Sharma (2011) with elementary students. Whereas Suyanto (1999) reported no increase in mathematics achievement of third, fourth and fifth graders, which is supported by Alkhateeb, Haitham and Jumaa (2002) with 8th grade student’s performance in algebra, in United Arab Emirates.

117 Stevens, Olivarez, Lan and Tallent-Runnels (2004) supported that selfefficacy predicts motivational orientation and mathematics performance. Bosfield (2004) reported that cooperative classroom students show higher growth skills in mathematical computation. Siegel (2005) indentified the teacher’s prior experience and teaching context as factors that influenced his implementations of cooperativelearning instruction. Ding, Li, Piccolo and Kulm (2007) suggested detailed techniques to effectively address student’s mathematical thinking. Coston (1994), Morgan (1994), Vaughan (2002) reported higher attitudes towards mathematics. Karnaasch (1995) reported that most students felt that they had more opportunity for learning mathematics in small groups. B.

Cooperative Learning in Other Subjects

B.1

English Cooperative learning techniques showed improvement in achievement in

different subjects or areas other than mathematics, as supported by Slavin (1978) in English grammar and punctuation, Cooper, Johnson, Johnson and Wilderson (1980), Orlando, Joseph Edward (1991) in English, Sheng (1990) in spelling instruction, Adams (1995) in reading and comprehension, Geed, Passi and Dube (2003) in overall performances in English of ninth graders, Chen (2004) in English among College students. B.2

Other Languages Cooperative learning techniques showed significant increase in achievement

in different languages other than English, as supported by Slavin (1980) in language mechanics, Anderson, Johnson, Johnson and Johnson (1976) in language arts, Ali (1999) in languages viz English, Hindi and Assamese, Madrid, Canas and Medina (2007) reported higher rate of language learning among primary students. B.3

Social Studies/Science In case of social studies, Armstrong (1997) and Karnaasch (2001) reported no

significant increase in achievement.

118 Cooperative learning techniques showed significant increase in achievement as supported by Johnson et. al. (1976) Nattiv (1986), Nederhood (1986), Conwell et. al. (1988), and Armstrong (1997) and Earley (1999) in Social Studies, Cooper, Johnson, Johnson and Wilderson (1980) in geography, Lang (1983) in economics. Armstrong (1997) reported higher attitudes towards social studies. B.4

Science In case of science, Cooper, Johnson, Johnson and Wilderson (1980) found

significant increase in achievement. The same is supported by Watson (1988), Kinney (1989), and Prakash Satya C.V. and Patnaik S.P. (2005) in Biology, Cook (1993), Ahuja (1994), Pandey and Kaushal Kishore (2002) in science, Barett (2000) in physical science, Stepka (1999) and Sparks (1999)

in chemistry, and reported

increase in achievement in science. Doymus, Simsek, Karacop and Ada (2009) indicated the instruction based on group investigation techniques, caused a significantly better achievement in term of thermo-chemistry, B.5

CAI/Electronics Yaibua (2005) reported singnificant increase in achievement scores in

Electronics of Diploma course students. Neyashbour (2001) reported no significant increase in performance in computer education. 2.5

IMPLICATIONS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING

STRATEGIES/

TECHNOLOGIES FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Cooperative learning has several strategies and techniques for promoting an educational experience that facilitates students and teachers to move beyond standard classroom parameters. In cooperative learning, teams, each with students of different levels of ability, use a variety of learning activities to improve their understanding of the subject through a constructivist approach. In recent research studies, researchers used many of the cooperative learning strategies alone or with the cooperation of other methods, techniques and technologies to prove their points. Review of research

119 studies revealed that cooperative learning setting used by most of the researchers were found to be very common such as Student-Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD), Student-Team Games Tournament (TGT), Teams Assisted Individualization (TAI), Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC), Jigsaw, Learning Together and Group Investigation to improve the teaching learning pace and progress in the classroom. Recent research studies showed increase of favourable attitudes towards different subjects, cooperative learning and towards classroom environment.