Title
Author(s)
Citation
Issued Date
URL
Rights
The effects of collaborative learning on students' attitude and academic achievement in learning computer programming
Wong, Wing-man.; 黃永民. Wong, W. [黃永民]. (2001). The effects of collaborative learning on students' attitude and academic achievement in learning computer programming. (Thesis). University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong SAR. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.5353/th_b3196265 2001
http://hdl.handle.net/10722/27571
The author retains all proprietary rights, (such as patent rights) and the right to use in future works.
THE EFFECTS OF COLLABORATiVE LEARNING ON STUDENTS' ATTITUDE AND ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT IN
LEARNLNG COMPUTER PROGRAMMING
by Wong Wing Man
under the supervision of
Lo Wing Ching Ivy
Dissertation presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
The Degree of Master of Education,
the University of Hong Kong.
August 2001
f
-::
; %
'6'R
,.
Declaration
I hereby declare that this dissertation represents my own work and that it has not been
previously submitted to this University or any other institution in application for admission to a degree, diploma or other qualifications.
August 2001
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I am indebted to many people who have generously made their contribution '
to this dissertation. First and foremost, I would like to express my profound gratitude to my supervisor, Ms. Lo, Wing Ching, for her unfailing support and encouragement throughout the process of preparing this dissertation, and for her invaluable advice and insightful comments so that this dissertation can be written
in the form it is. I really appreciate her guidance that helps me develop a sense to conduct research.
Special thanks are extended to Mr. Paul Chan, Principal of LCK Lutheran College, and the teaching staff who have facilitated the process of data collection.
Sincere gratitude is also extended to my wife for her emotional support. Last but not least, J would like to thank my colleagues, Mrs. S.F. So and Mr. W.W. Wong, who have given me continual support and have taken up extra workload during the
process ofdata collection.
ri-JE 1JI-J'VRSI'TY C)F 1-4C)r.TG }C)N(3
LIE
m1iis
11S
c11ctirn
riepcsited by tb Aithar
ABSTRACT This study reports research on the use of collaborative learning strategies in a
computer course at a secondary school. An experimental design was used to compare the difference in achievement and students' attitude between students taught using collaborative learning and students taught in the traditional individual learning.
The study
employed a 2x2 (treatment x ability) quasi-experimental design.
The instructional strategies were collaborative learning approach and traditional instructional approach. I 5 8 full-time students from a secondary school constituted the samples. The S classes were classified to high or low ability class according to
the group's pretest performance in each class; hence there were 4 high ability classes and 4 low ability classes. The students working in peer in two high
ability
groups bad undergone collaborative learning and the students working in the other
two high ability groups had to undergo individual learning. Same design was arranged in the low ability groups.
The students achievement was measured by the individual result in the
posttest. Their attitudes and peer relationship were assessed by a computer learning attitude inventory and a peer relationship inventory. Achievement and attitudinal data were collected for the students at the end of the treatment period.
Results revealed that students performed better on achievement (syntactic knowledge and schematic knowledge) and were more positive toward learning
programming activities when they were working in collaborative groups than
when they were working on the same activities individually. The study also
lt
included a measure of achievement based on different students' abilities. The analysis of which resulted in a significant interaction between students' ability and
academic achievement. More improvement in academic achievement was recorded in high ability students than low ability students regardless of their learning strategy.
Finally, recommendations on practical implication of the results on teaching
in computer room or multimedia room by using collaborative learning were discussed and direction for Ñture research was made.
t'i
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
Aeknowedgements Abstract Table of Contents
i
ListofTables ListofFigures
V
ii
iv vii
Chapter I
Introduction
Chapter H
Review of Literature A. Theoretical Framework of Collaborative Learning 13. Essentials of Collaborative Learning
I
C.FurtherEssentials D. Benefits of Collaborative Learning E. Logo Computer Prograniming F. Benefits of Collaborative Learning in Computer Programming G. Purpose and Hypotheses ofthe Study
Chapter ifi
Methodology A. Participaxits
B. Materials and Measurement C. Procedure D. DataAnalysis Chapter W
Results A. FactorAnalysis ofPeer Relationship Inventory B. Reliability oflnstrument C. Correlations ofAttitude Inventories
Chapter VI
Chapter VII
24 26 26 27 30 30 32 32 39
E. Test for the Null Hypotheses F. Questionnaire Results
41 41 43 54
Discussion A. Significant Effects
59 59
B. NonSignificant Effect
66
Limitations arid Further Study A. Limitations
B.FurtherStudy
69 69 70
Conclusions
71
D.PathDiagram
Chapter V
6 6 9 13 14 i 9 23
74
Reference Appendix
IV
List of Tables
Page
Table Subject and Learning Approach Arrangement Table 2: Participants Distribution Table 3: Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin and Bartlettts Test Table 4: Factor Loadings ofthe Peer relationship - Total Vañance Explained Table 5 Rotated Component Matrix(a) Table 6: Kaiser-Meyer-011dri and Bartlett's Test Table 7: Factor Loadillgs ofthe Peer relationship Total Variance Explained Table 8: Rotated Component Matrix
27 27 32
i :
:
Table9: TotalVarianceExplained Table i O: Factors ofPeer Relationship Attitude Table i I Reliability ofPeer Relationship Attitude :
Table 12: Reliability ofComputer Learning Attitude Table 13: Pearson Correlations ofLearriing Attitude Table 14: Model Summary Table 15: Standardized Coefficients Table 16: Correlation among learning approach, students ability, computer attitude, peer relationship attitude and academic achievement Table 17: Box's Test ofEquaiity ofCovariance Matrices Table i 8 Results ofMultivariate Tests Table 19: Tests ofBetween-Subjects Effects Table 20: Means and Standard Error ofposttest, computer attitude and peer relationship attitude for different learning approaches. Table 2 1 Pairwise Comparisons of Learning Approaches Table 22: Mean and Standard Error ofDependent Variable Table 23: Pairwise Comparisons ofDependent Variables Table 24: Box's Test ofEquality ofCovariance Matrices & Multivariate Tests Table 25: Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Table 26: SSCP Matrix Learning Table 27: Descriptive Statistics Table 28 Correlation between learning approach and computer Programming Table 29: Boxs Test ofEquality ofCovariance Matrices and Multivariate Tests Table 30: Tests ofBetween-Subjects Effects Table 31: Between-Subjects SSCP Matrix Table 32: Descriptive Statistics Mean Table 33: Correlation between student's ability and components :
:
33 34 35 35 37 37 38
40 40 41
42 43
44 44 45 46
46 47 47 48 50 50 50 51
:
oftheposttest Table 34: Interview Results (16 people to participate in the interview)
V
52 53 53 53 54
54 55
List of Figures Figure 1: Scree Plot ofhePeerRelationship Figure 2: Path Diagram (with non-significant paths) Figure 3: Paths Diagram (significant paths) Figure 4: Boxplot ofPosttest against Instructional Learning Approach Figure 5 : Boxplot ofAchievement against Student Ability Figure 6: Linear graph ofeomputer learning attitude
Appendix A - LOGO Pretest paper (English and Chinese version) B - LOGO Posttest paper (English and Chinese version) C - Scale ofAttitude toward computer (English and Chinese version) D - Index ofPeer Relations (English and Chinese version) E - Interview Forni (English and Chinese version)
vi
36 42 43 47 48 51
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTiON
The concept of collaborative learning, the grouping and pairing of students
for the purpose of achieving an academic goal, has been widely researched and
advocated throughout the professional literature (Johnson & Johnson, i 992, Slavin, 1995, Gokhale, 1995). The term "collaborative learning" refers to an instruction method in which students at various performance levels work together
in small groups toward a common goal. The students are responsible for one another's learning as well as their own. Thus, the success of one student helps other students to be successful.
In spite of these advantages, most of the research studies on collaborative learning have been done on the evaluation of critical thinking and transfer effects.
As yet, there is little empirical evidence on its effectiveness on student's attitude. The advances in technology arid changes in the organizational infrastructure put an increased emphasis on teamwork. Students need to be able to think creatively, s&ve problems, and make decisions in a group project. Therefore,
the
development and enhancement of critical-thinking skills through collaborative
learning is one of the primary goals of technology education. The present research was designed to study the effectiveness of collaborative learning as it relates to learning attitudes and academic achievement in computer programming course.
Tn recent years, more computer rooms and multimedia-learning classrooms
have been built to provide and implement information technology education in
secondary schools. When teachers brought their classes into the room, students
worked individually on computer-based instructional lessons for one or double periods. In such learning environment, learning with computer may fit well with
the purpose of instruction tailored to individual needs, it also created problems such as increasing anxiety. hostility, and boredom when students use machines (Lepper, 1985). Students are generally isolated from one another in the learning setting. Facing to computer, student was discouraged from shaiing information or providing assistance to and by other students.
The above problems caused in computer room could be alleviated by collaborative learning. Collaborative leaning is a combination of instmctional strategies
in which a group of students master their learning through
collaborative efforts. Students
work in small. mixed-ability learning teams and
draw on each other's strength and help each other to accomplish a common academic goal. This method encourages supportive relationships, good
communication skills and higher-level thinking abilities. The rationale for eollaborative learning is heterogeneous groups worki3g towards a common goal
with group members responsible for their teammates' learning and their own learning. The aims of collaborative learning are to encourage cooperative group relationships, to develop students' self-esteem, arid to increase students' academic achievements.
In traditional school learning, individual students usually study in
a
competitive situation. If one succeeds, others will fail. In collaborative learning,
individuals will interact with one another and will develop group skills such as
discussion skills and intetpersonal skills in a collaborative learning situation.
Moreover, collaborative learning is a combination of instructional strategies that
encourages student to work together as a team. They share responsibility in learning for their own team as well as enhancing their face-to-face interaction and encouraging one another to do well. As a result, using collaborative learning strategies will help students to learn both social skills and subject matter.
According to Johnson and Johnson
(1 985),
found in processes within collaborative
many positive effects were
Learning as it
promoted higher
achievement and liking among students. These include promotion of high-quality
reasoning strategies, constructive management of conflict over ideas and
conclusions, increased time on task, more elaborate information processing. beneficial interaction between students of different achievement levels, feelings
of psychological support and acceptance, more positive attitudes towards subjects. In a collaborative setting, each student is responsible for hislher own
learning and for helping others. Learning under cooperative goal structure, strengths of each person
are utilized. Savin (1985) described cooperative
learning strategies as "structured, systematic instructional strategies capable of
being used at any grade level and in most school subjects. Each group is a microcosm of the class in achievement level, sex, and ethnicity'. The students'
work in mixed-ability groups are rewarded on the basis of the success of the whole group, based on a cooperative goal structure (Slavin, 1990).
In recent years, research on collaborative learning is currently a very popular topic in education, psychology and science. Educational research has attempted to determine under what circumstances collaborative learning is more effective than learning alone, and more recently, numerous studies have focused
4
ori the integration of collaborative learning with learning activities such as learning with instruction delivered using integrated learning system (Brush, i 997), learning with a computer simulation (Klein and Doran, 1 999) and learning
with computer-based instruction (Cavalier and Klein, 1998). Positive effects on
students' achievement and attitude were found among all the researchers when collaborative learning was used.
Information technology plays a crucial role in Hong Kong education; hence how to utilize computer technology to teach effectively would directly affect the
students' achievement and learning attitude. The study of collaborative learning
can help us to improve the curriculum. The Hong Kong Curriculum Development Council endorsed a variety of instructional methods to help student
master these capabilities and proposed that "A set of core and sustainable values
and attitudes are provided to serve as reference for curriculum planning for key learning areas, permeation into learning and teaching activities, especially those
involving personal judgment and relating man to
society, and life
events of
students at different stages of schooling." (HKCDC, 2000, p.38) "One ofthe nine
types of generic skills identified in the curriculum intentions of the new framework is collaboration skills (e.g. listening, appreciation, and negotiation),
which help students to engage effectively in tasks and teamwork and to benefit from collaborative relationships." (HKCDC, 2000, p.36).
Nowadays, education is not merely a means of transferring knowledge.
Student should also be built up arid cultivated with positive attitudes and collaborative skill towards learning so as to become an active and long-life learner lii traditional teaching, individualized learning and teacher-centered
presentations were stressed. The cooperative learning instructional strategies derived for this study suggested that one of the effective teaching method is to
directly transfer collaborative skill to students.
This study examined achievement and attitude differences between students
completing computer activities in a traditional and individualized format and students completing the same activities in collaborative learning groups in order
to investigate into the effectiveness of this instructional strategy and explore the
impact of collaborative learning on the students academic achievement and their
attitudes. Finally, this study would provide certain guidelines or information for
designing the collaborative learning in computer course.
CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE
A. Theoretical Framework ofCoUaborath'e Learning Over the past two decades, a number of researchers have examined the effect of collaborative learning on student achievement and attitude.
Fundamentally, collaborative learning that is related to relevant cognitive learning theories are zone ofproximal development and cognitive elaboration.
i Zone of Proximal Development -
Vygotsky (1978) hypothesized that there were certain skills or understandings that a particular age-group students had mastered completely.
some skills that they were on the edge of mastering, and other skills that they were beyond their present capacity to accommodate. He defined the
zone of proximal development as the distance between the actual developmental level and the level ofpotential development.
The zone of proximal development is one application of Piagets cognitive development theory. Piaget and Inhelder (1969) proposed that the
cognitive growth of a child takes place in four developmental stages, namely, Sensorimotor Stage (from birth to two years), Preoperational Stage
(from two to seven years), Concrete Operational Stage (froni seven to eleven years) and Fonnal Operational Stage (from eleven years to
adulthood). Each major stage represents a form of thinking that
is
qualitatively different from the preceding stage. A child has to go through each stage in a regular sequence. lt is impossible to skip or bypass a stage.
7
The stages of cognitive growth are sequential and follow an invariant sequence. Each stage was marked by the emergence of new intellectual
abilities that allowed people to understand some critical concepts in increasingly complex ways. The level of actual development could be developed by solving problems independently and the level of
potential
development could be developed through solving problems under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers. Piaget and Inhelder argued that instniction should focus on those skills that students were on the
edge of learning. The purpose of instruction was to gradually stretch studentst understandings into new territoryjust beyond familiar concepts.
According to Vygotsky (1978), students are capable of performing at higher intellectual levels when asked to work in collaborative situations than
when
asked
to work individually. Group diversity in terms of knowledge
and experience contributes positively to the learning process. Collaborative
activity among children promoted children's cognitive growth because children of similar ages were likely to be operating within one another's proximal zones of development. Damon (1984) also found that interaction
among children with appropriate tasks could increase their mastery of critical concept. The collaborating group behavior, such as peer tutoring and
peer discussion, provided opportunity for students to discuss, argue. present their own view, and hear each other's viewpoints.
2. Cognitive Elaboration
Cognitive elaboration refers to the process of thiuking or cognitive restructuring of materials to be learned in a way that connected the material
8
to information or ideas already in the learners mind (Reigeluth, i 983). The elaborated information was easier to understand and had a better retention in
memory. The most effective means of cognitive elaboration was explaining the material to someone else. O'Donnell and Dansereau (1992) investigated
how college students worked on structured "cooperative scripts' . Students worked in pairs; they took roles as recaller and listener and took turns orally
sunmiating sections of material to their partners. It was found that they could learn technical materials or procedures better than students working alone. J-n addition, Dansereau (1988) compared the gains of the two
participants in the cooperative pairs, the larger gains went to the students explaining to their partners rather than those serving as listeners. Students who gained the
most from cooperative
activities were those who provided
elaborated explanations to others and elaboration was an element involved in collaborative learning that could increase student achievement.
Collaborative learning was a higher level of cognitive strategies because students were required to conceptualize and organize the learning materials when they were learning materials to teach others than when they
were learning materials for their own benefit (Bargh & Schul, 1980; Johnson & Johnson, i 992a). While students were orally summarizing, explaining and elaborating the concepts and information they had learned to
others, the concepts and information were being cognitively organized and
systematized. Such tasks required storage of information into memory through encoding, retrieval, and long-term retention. Oral rehearsal provided opportunity to consolidate and strengthen what was known, and
get relevant feedback about the degree to which understanding had been
achieved. (Vager, Johnson, & Johnson, 1985).
B. EssenUals of Collaborative Learning On the basis of a common understanding, most researchers have chosen
to use
cooperative learning' to characterize those learning approaches in
which peer or group interaction plays a significant role, but where content and
construction of knowledge are still primarily determined and driven by the instructor. By contrast, when students are asked to view knowledge as created
in the classroom learning community, and to rely on one another and the instructor ¡n defining the curriculum, then the term 'collaborative learning'
will be used.
In defining collaborative learning Smith and MacGregor (1992) described seven shifts that students must undergo in order for collaborative learning to
occur. One of the shifts that perhaps best distinguishes collaborative from cooperative learning is the one addressing the shift of perceived authority and
source of knowledge. As students move from seeing teachers and texts as the sole sources of authority and knowledge, to seeing peers, themselves, aixi the
thinking of the community as additional and important sources of authority and knowledge, a course becomes more collaborative.
According to Johnson and Johnson (1991), there are five essential
components that must be present for small-group learning to be truly collaborative. They are: positive interdependence, face-to-face promitive interaction, individual accountability, social skills, and group processing. Hence, the process of collaborative learning is not simply putting students in
lo
groups to learn; rather, it is structured collaboration among students. The five essential components were used in current research when students underwent collaborative learning. Collaborative learning is the instructional use of small groups. In the process of collaborative learning, students are allowed to work
together to maximize their own and others' learning. On the other hand, teacher's role is expanded to include facilitating and coordinating the student groups, and teacher should arrange the groups and the activities including the
above key essentials, which were to be described further in the following paragraphs.
1. Positive Interdependence
Under collaborative learning, students realize that what each of them does inthvidually affects the work and success of the others. When teacher designs the work in which it is opportunely for students to share information.
Students have to master the assigned material in order to contribute to the
common goal and each group member must also ensure that all members learn the assigned material. Hence, collaborative learning motivates students
to help each other and work together. Therefore, students should take their
own task responsibilities and roles, and their efforts are indispensable for the success ofthe whole group.
According to Johnson and Johnson (1991), positive interdependence
can be established by one of four aspects, they are mutual goals, joint
rewards, shared resources, or assiicd role. In mutual goals, individual
member learns the assigned material and makes sure all other group members learn it. In joint rewards, individuals will get reward only if the
11
whole team
accomplishes the objective task. In shared resources, each
member masters or receives part of the resources to contribute to the whole group
to ensure task
specialization. In assigned role,
roles are
complementary to accomplish the task, and it is so called role interdependence.
2. Face to Face Promitive Interaction
In face to face promitive interaction, students help, encourage, and support each others efforts to learn because they depend on each other. Students explain, discuss and teach what they know to c!assmates. This will promote each other's learning through sharing idea and encouragement.
3. Individual Accountability
Under collaborative goal structure, individual accountability is a sense
of personal responsibility to oneself and to other group members. Each
member of the group has to contribute one's efforts to accomplish the grouprs goal. Each group member should not get a ride on the work of
others. Each one takes personal responsibility for mastery of assigned material and have fair share of the groups work to avoid the diffusion of responsibility.
Individual accountability can be established by rewarding groups based
on group performance or the sum of individual performances and resources
interdependence. Slavin (1990) used best-evidence synthesis method to analyze the relation between cooperative learning and student achievement. He stressed that individual accountability and group rewards were essential
12
elements in cooperative learning because they motivated students to greater
involvement arid excited more help behaviors which were absent in traditiona' group work. Moreover, the smaller the size of the group, the greater the individual accountability may be (Messiek and 8rewer i 983).
4. Social Skills
Since collaborative learning requires members to work
effectively
together, students learn and use necessary social skills within their groups.
The skills include task skills and maintenance skills Task skills related to
the content of the task include giving ideas, following directions, decision-making, and sharing information. Maintenance skills are related to
the building
of
group cohesiveness and making the group function
effectively, for example, leadership, trust building, communication,
conflict-management, sharing feelings, encouraging others (Dishon & O'Leary, 1984).
5_ Group Processitig
The last key essential is group processing. Group processing is an evaluation step for groups to discuss their performance, how well sti.idents are achieving their goals and maintaining effective working relationships. It
can be done either by structured grcnip processing form or self-reporting from each group member. Teacher can also monitor and intervene during the activities and give feedback to each group and who'e class after his/her observation.
13
C. Further Essentials
Johnson and Johnson (1992b) suggested that with only resource interdependence it could not hnplement a real cooperative learning, because
competitive situation still existed. On the contrary, positive outcome of interdepetxlence created a situation in which each person benefited from the
achievement and productivity of his or her teanunates and this motivated or
promoted their success. Moreover, when resource interdependence alone
existed within a group, it created a situation in which each person was dependent on receiving resources from teammates but did not gain from sharing his or her resources. In the
goal
interdependence condition, individuals
studied all the material and were graded on the basis of their total grouping score. ln the resource interdependence condition, individuals were given one third of the material to learn and teach to the other two members of their group
but were graded on their individual performance on his tests. The result revealed that individuals in the goal interdependence condition performed better than those in the resource interdependence condition.
Johnson, Johnson, Stanne, and Garibaldi (1990) conducted another study
comparing goal and resource interdependence on achievement in a
computerassisted problem-solving task. Four conditions were included, namely
positive goal
interdependence individualistic.
only,
and
resource
positive
interdependence,
resource
positive
interdependence
only,
The result showed that the combination of positive
goal
goal
and and
resource interdependence promoted higher individual achievement and group
productivity than did any of the other conditions, indicating that two sources
of positive interdependence were more powerful than one. When used in
14
isolation
from
positive
goal
interdependence
produced
the
prob1em-soIvin
interdependence, lowest
individual
positive
resource
achievement
and
success, even lower than individualistic efforts. Students
achieved more under individualistic conditions than under a combination of resource interdependence and individual rewards. The positive
goal
interdependence seemed to be the most important of the three and the other two tended to have the additive effect to the first.
The conditions of collaborative learning were always re-cerebrated hy researches. Many studies showed that the effects of collaborative learning on
students academic achievement depended on the quality of students' group
interaction (Battistich, Solomon, & Dehiechi, 1993; Hooper, S., 1992). Dillenbourg (1999) emphasized that collaborative learning was a situation in which particular forms interaction among people are expected to occur, which would trigger learning mechanisms, but there is no guarantee that the expected interactions will actually occur. Hence, a general concern was to develop ways
to increase the probability that some types of interaction occur such as to over-specifi the collaboration contract with a scenaiio based on roles, or to monitor and regulate the interactions.
o.
3enefits of Collaborative Learning Over the past two decades, a number of researchers have examined the effect of collaborative learning on student achievement and attitude. Generally,
reviews of research have suggested that collaborative learning can motivate students to get higher achievement, develop positive attitudes towards their learning situation and enhance student thinking. Some benefits are
15
summarized in the fo!Iowing three catalogues:
1. Academic Achievement
Academic achievement has been positively related to the essentials of
collaborative learning. The rationale, which can promote achievement can be summarized in the following paragiaphs:
Research examining the academic impact of collaborative learning has
provided mostly positive results on academic achievement. Slavin (1995) examined 99 studies in which cooperative teaming groups were comp&ed with individual instruction. Of those 99 studies, he found that 63 reported a
significant increase in achievement levels for students participating in cooperative learning groups, with only 5 showing significant differences in
favor of individual instruction. In a second nieta-analysis, Slavin analyzed
studies that compared the effects of cooperative learning on achievement with those of students in individual learning situations. Of the 3 8 studies
reviewed 33 reported significant increases in academic achievement for students participating in cooperative learning situations. Similar positive
achievement effects were also reported in other researches (Gabbert, Johnson, & Johnson (1986), Johnson & Johnson, (1992a), Qin, Johnson, & Johnson (1995), and Zammuner (1995)).
2. Enhanced Decision Making
Students learning in small groups had greater opportunity to regulate their own collaborative learning activity and use decision-making process to
resolve the conflict constructively. A high degree of self-regulation and
decision-making could make them feel the learning task being themselves
and enhance high level motivation in respect of carrying out the learning tasks (Sharan & Shanlov, 1990, Gokhale, A., 1995).
3. Improve Problem-Solving
Many studies revealed that cooperative learning experiences not only
had positive effects on students' achievement but also had promotion of
critical thinking, higher level of reasoning and
metacognitive thought.
Cooperative group work was more favorable than independent practice to
the learning of sorne problem-solving strategies. Students practiced in cooperative
groups
demonstrated
greater
long-term
memory
of
problem-solving strategies (Duren & Cherringtoii, 1992).
4. Promotion of Critical Thinking
The motivational aspect of cooperative learning stresses on the
cooperative goals that change the students' incentives to master the academic goals. hi cognitive theories, sWdents' face-to-face interaction to
promote critical thinking, higher leve' of reasoning and metacognitive thought are emphasized. Many studies revealed that cooperative learning experiences had positive effects on student achievement and promotion of
critical thinking, higher level of reasoning and metacognitive thought (Gabbert, Johnson, & Johnson, 1986; Johnson, Skon, & Johnson, 1980; Johnson D.W.& Johnson R.T., 1992a; Skon, Johnson, & Joimson, 1981).
5
.
Enhance Motivation
Rewarding groups based on group performance or sum of individual
17
performances as well as created an interpersonal reward structure in which group members would give or withhold social reinforces such as praise and
encouragemeiit in response to group mates' task-related
efforts. Such
interpersonal reward structure would motivate the students to put more effort in learning (Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Sicon, 1981; Slavin, 1990).
Moreover, positive interdependence and individual accountability also had positive effects on individual's motivation. When individuals perceived that their efforts were dispensable for the group success, they niight put less
effort (Ken, 1983). in contrast, if group members fett their contributions were valuable, they would increase their efforts (Harkins & Petty, 1982). Individual accountability would motivate students to put effort due to their sense ofpersonal responsibility towards the whole group.
6. Social Status
There were different social consequences for students ix cooperative
learning and competitive learning. Slavin (1990) found that students in cooperative groups who gained achievement had improved social status in
the classroom, whereas in traditional classes such students lost status. In competitive groups, learning became an activity that got students ahead but
they lost favorable attitudes from their classmates in their peer group. On
the other hand, students who worked in cooperative learning groups significantly agreed that their classmates wanted them to do their best than
those in competitive learning groups (Madded & Slavic, 1983; Slavin. i 990,1992).
18
7. Be1ongir,g
Positive interdependence stressed positive social relations among classmates through peer collaboration and mutual assistance in small groups.
It would cultivate students' sense of acceptance with each other and they
would be free from competition. Under such harmonious learning environment, they would be motivated to work together towards a common goal (Sharam & Shanlov, 1990).
8. Social Behavior
In ternis of effects on social behaviors, Mesch et al. (1986) placed students in cooperative learning situations and provided them with frainiiig
on effectively interacting in those situations. They found that, as a result of
the training and cooperative group experiences, students who tended to be isolated and withdrawn interacted significantly more with their peers both within and outside the cooperative learning activities.
In an analysis of five studies dealing with cooperative learning. Lloyd
et al. (1988) concluded that cooperative learning had significant positive
effects particularly on social behavio; in comparison to competitive and
individualistic procedures. Several studies have fornid that cooperative learning improves relationships between disabled and non-disabled peers
(Slavin, 1995), and between students from different ethnic and racial backgrounds (Slavin, 1983). Research (Mulryan, 1995) has also shown that
cooperative learning lead to a
decrease in behavior difficulties such as
talking out and not paying attention iii the classroom. Finally. Hall et al. (1988) found that pairs of college students with moderate to high levels of
19
social orientation outperformed pairs with low levels of social orientation; students with a low social orientation performed better when working alone.
9. Positive hiterdeendence & Interersonal Interaction Positive interdependence was considered to be a very critical element
in increasing student achievement by Johnson D.W. & Johnson R.T., (1 992b). They argued that positive goal interdependence within cooperative
learning not only motivated students to work liard but also enhanced their primitive interpersonal interaction. In their research, they conducted a study to
test the importance of positive interdependence against group
membership without positive interdependence structure. The results indicated
that
positi've
interdependence
was
necessary.
Positive
interdependence tended to make every member feel responsible for working
hard to ensure that both they and their teammates were successfui. Individuals in the cooperative condition had stronger beliefs that they should study because classmates expected them to. Positive interdependence
had to be structured to increase student achievement. Lanyard (1992) also stated that teamwork under cooperative learning had increasing importance
and popularity in vocational education because it could enhance students learning as well as their interpersonal skills.
E. Loio Computer Prorammin2 The Logo environment was conceptualized and created by Papert (1980)
and his colleagues. Papert's belief is that while children explore in the Logo environment and solve problems they encounter, they can learn and develop the skills of systematic thinking for a wide range of purposes. As
20
prob1em-soving experience accumulates, the systematic thinking witt give way to an intuitive understanding of concepts and to the formulation of rules and strategies for solving problems.
Mayer (1988), in discussing expert-novice differences in progrnmming identified four types knowledge in which experts and novices may differ. They
are syntactic knowledge, semantic knowledge, schematic knowledge and strategies knowledge. The syntactic knowledge refers to knowledge of the language units and the rules for combining the units. Semantic knowledge is knowledge of language meaning, which refers to concepts that allow a user to
represent what goes on inside the computer system when a lone of code or
command is executed. Schematic knowledge is knowledge of common subroutine structures of functional units of code. It refers to a repertoire of
subroutine categorized by function. Finally, the strategies knowledge is knowledge of how to devise and monitor solution pians. It involves plans for how to use the available information in order to achieve a goal. To become an expert, student is required to acquire a body ofknowledge which can be taught through training and education.
i . Syntactic Knowledge In a Logo graphics environment, the child acquires syntactic
knowledge, including knowing the legal command elements, rules for combining the elements into commands and rules for combining commands
into programs. Then, the child acquires semantic knowledge specific to Logo, such as a mental model of the locations, objects, and actions carried out in the computer.
21
Knowledge of the programming langiage syntax is necessary for successful computer programming. [n order for the computer to execute some action, the student must input syntactically correct commands, The syntactic knowledge is a code recognitioniproduction knowledge, in which the learner has to recognize and generate legal programming code. This task requires knowledge of the prograniming language syntax, that is, the lexicon
and grammar used for programming the movement ofthe turtle.
Heller (1986) examined fourth-grade students' knowledge of Logo graphics syntax after 3 and 12 weeks ofLogo experience. After 3 weeks of
Logo experience, the mean percentage coiTect on a Logo syntax test was approximately 48%, and after 12 weeks, performance rose to 65% correct,
which indicates that they had acquired the syntactic features of Logo if learning time and retention increased.
2. Semantic Knowledge
The semantic knowledge is a comprehension task, in which the learner has to predict the output that would be produced by a set ofcommands. This
task provides the command syntax, but requires knowledge of the meaning ofthe commands, that is, the semantics ofthe programming language.
The semantic knowledge that can be acquired through programming
experience is semantic knowledge. Unlike the syntactic structure, the semantic structure of a programming environment is not arbitrary; it has a
logical structire that is dependent on the functional components of the
22
programming domain. There are three functional components that can be used to describe the semantics of COmÌna.UdS in all programming languages: (i) operations, which are the actions that can be performed;
(ii) objects, which are the entities that are operated upon; and
( iii) locations, which refer to where in the computer the operation occurs.
Every aspect of a programming command can be described as an operation that is applied to an object at some location. Although all
programming languages can be analyzed in terms of these three components,
each may differ in the actual operations, objects, and locations that are available to them (Mayer, 1988).
Research has demonstrated that many students have difficulty acquiring the semantic structure of the programming environment (Mayer &
Fay, 1987; Sleeman el ta 1986). One source of difficulty can stem from the
preconceptions or intuitive knowledge that the learner brings with him or her lo the programming environment. When these preconceptions conflict with the semantic stmcture of the programming environment, it can result in
the construction of faulty or inaccurate mental models of the programming statements.
3. Schematic Knowld Schematic knowledge is the knowledge of common routine structures
of functional units of code called "chunk" (Mayer, 1988). Each chunk will be defined as the smallest functional unit or 'plan' having a flat structure of a sequence of steps that are used to perform a single task. It is assumed that
23
students should be able to handle the surface knowledge of a particutar language before they can move up the hierarchy to the schematic level of
programming using that language. If students cannot handle the surface knowledge of that particular know'edge, we cannot expect them to handle the schematic knowledge ofthat language.
F. Benefits of Collaboratfve Learning in Computer Programming Reviews of studies have suggested that learning computer can improve in
problem-solving performance on rule-learning tasks and in metacognition (Clements and Gullo, 1984, Webb, 1985). According to Webb (1985), the study evaluated group effectiveness in the teaching of computer programming to 30 students ranging in age from 1 1. to 14. The study dealt extensively with
group planning and processing involved in the breakdown and dissemination
of knowledge. Webb also looked at the relationship of cooperative groups to
increased academic achievement and found that cooperative group learning was positively related to
academic performance for students learning a
computer programming language.
Tao, P K. and Gunstone, R. F. (1999) were to investigate whether and how collaborative learning at the computer fosters conceptual change. A suite
of computer simulation programs was developed to confront students' alternative conceptions in mechanics. The research was
integrated into a
I 0-week physics instruction of a Grade i O science class. Students in the class worked
coilaboratively
in
dyads
on
the
programs
carrying
out
predict-observe-explain tasks according to a set of worksheets. The study showed that the computer-supported collaborative learning provided students
24
with experiences of co-construction of shared understanding and peer conflicts
which led to conceptual change for those who were cognitively engaged in the
tasks and prepared to reflect ori and reconstruct their conceptions. It showed
that whilst co-construction was important to achieve long-term and stable conceptual change, it has to be accompanied by students' personal construction and sense of making the new understanding.
G Purpose and Hypotheses of the Study In keeping
with the concept
of optimizthg learning computer
programming by collaborative pairing students at a computer, it is necessary to
know if collaborative learning structures affect the academic achievement and
attitude of students iearning with computers. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to analyze the difference in achievement and attitude between two gToups of secondary students learning Logo computer programming under two
different learning treatments: collaborative task and individualistic task. By manipulating
the
independent
variables
(collaborative
learning
and
individualistic learning) significant differences in two dependent variables (student achievement and student attitude) were tested. In current study, the effectiveness of individual learning versus collaborative learning in computer
prograninhing course is examined. Specifically, the study addressed the following research questions:
i . Will there be a significant mutual interaction between instructional
lean]ing strategy and student's ability on the academic achievement and student's attitude? 2. Will there be a significant difference in student's attitudes (computer
25
learning attitude and peer relationship attitude) between students learning individually and students learning collaboratively? 3. Will
there be a
significant difference in computer programming
achievement (syntactic, semantic and schematic) between students learning individually and students learning collaboratively?
Achievement test scores, an attitudinal questionnaires, and interview were
analyzed to determine differences between students working in peer collaborative and students working individually.
In this study. subjects classified as high or low ability used either a cooperative or individual learning strategy while receiving instruction from computer programming lessons. Based on previous research, the hypothesis were shown as follows: 1.
There will be no significant interaction between instructional learning strategy and student's ability on achievement and attitude.
2. There
Will
be no significant difference in student's attitude between
collaborative learning structures and individualistic learning structures. 3.
There will be no significant difference in academic achievement between collaborative learning structures
and individualistic learning structures.
26
CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY
A. Participants The present study encompasses I 58 Form 2 students enrolled in a Logo
computer programming course in a secondary school. All participants were
divided into 8 groups: 4 groups were to undergo collaborative learning approach and the other 4 groups were to undergo traditional instractional
teaching approach. The students in class A and B were classified as high ability students whereas those in class C and D were classified as the low ability students. The eight groups were categorized into two experimental groups with high ability students, two experimental groups with low ability students, two control groups with high ability students, and two control groups
with low ability students. The class anangement and the number of students for each group were shown in Table i and Table 2 respectively. Students in the
collaborative class were randomly paired with another in the same class. The
assignment of learning approaches to students depends on which class they were in and whether their class numbers are even or odd.
27
Table i: Subject and Learning Approach Arrangement Class
2A(i)
2A(2)
2B(1)
ClassNo.
odd
even
odd
even
odd
even
odd
even
No.ofStudents
21
20
20
19
20
19
20
19
Learning Approach Ability
I
C
C
I
I
C
C
I
H
H
H
H
L
L
L
L
'reacher
A
B
A
B
A
B
A
B
C: I
:
Collaborative Group Individual Groui,
28(2) 2C(i) 2C(2) 20(1) 2D(2)
H:
High Ability Students
A:
L:
Low Ability Students
B:
Teacher A Teacher B
Table 2: Participants Distribution LearningAppro ach Collaborative Group Individual Group High ability students 40 40
(20inclassA&20
(21 inclassA& 19
inclass B)
in class B)
39
39
Low ability students
Total 80
78
(l9inclassC&2Oin (2üinclassC& i9 Total
classD)
in class D)
79
70
158
Students participating in this study had already used the computer system and had learnt simple Logo program before, therefore learning to use the basic computer system and simple Logo prograxn were not necessary Participants have
experience in learning under informal collaborative learning, yet the formal collaborative training skills were also introduced to the collaborative students at the beginning ofthe study.
B. Materials and Measurement Two tests and collection.
two questionnaires were utilized in the course of data
28
1. Achievement Test (Posttegfl
The content of the posttest covers two topics. One is procedure writing
with vañables aiìd another is generaion of random number. The 10 questions in the test were divided into three sections -5 syntactic questions, 3 semantic questions and 2 schematic questions. Each section weighted
I5
scores constituting a full score of 45. Students had 40 minutes to finish the test.
2. Pretest
The content and marking scheme of the pretest was similar to that of the achievement test except that the level of difficulty was a bit lower. It was conducted as a means
of categorizing
students into the high ability and
low ability groups.
3. Cornputer Attitude Scale
The first questionnaire, called Computer Attitude Scale (See Appendix
C), was a replicate of the Science Attitude Scale designed by Aiken (1979)
except that the wordings of "science" in the original scale were changed to
"computer or computer programming". The Attitude Scale was adopted because it was a thoughtful and meditative questionnaire to investigate and
predict learning attitude which was consisted of four testiug components, namely enjoyment, motivation, importance, and freedom from fear. The 24
statements were rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The items in the original scale were in
Englìh and were translated into Chinese so as to make the scale more apprehensible to the students.
29
Scoring of responses to each of the 24 items on a questionnaire as C), 1,
2, 3, or 4 in the direction from most negative to most positive in attitude toward computer yielded four part scores. The enjoyment score is the sum ofscores on items i, 5, 9, 13, 17, and 21. Themotivation score is the sum of scores on items 2,
,
10, 14, 18, and 22. The importaiice score is the sum of
scores on items 3, 7, ii, 15, 19, and 23. The freedom from fear score is the sum ofseore on items 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24. Three ofthe six items on each
of the four part scales are worded in a positive direction and three in a negative direction in terms of attitudes toward the subject (item numbers are ,
4, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 15, 17, 20. 22 and 23). Finally, a total score consisting
of the sum of scores on the four part scales was determined. Scores on all part ranged from O
to 24, and tota' scores from O
to 96. The higher the
scores student gets, the more positive they are toward learning.
4. Peer Relationshjp 1nveny The second questionnaire is the Peer Relationship Inventory designed
by Aero & Weiner (1981). It was adopted to measure peer relationship attitude (See Appendix D). Like the Computer Attitude Scale, the items in
this inventory were also transiated from English to Chinese for easy comprehension.
There were three steps to find the total
score of peer relationship. First,
summation ofthe answers for items 2, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 19, 20, 23 24,
and 15. Next, reverse the numerical value ofthe answers for items 1, 4, 7, 8,
li, 12, 15, 16, 17. 18, 21 and 22 in the following formulae: i earns 5 points,
30
2 earns 4 points, 3 earns 3 points, 4 earns 2 points and 5 earns i point, and then sum up the scores. The total score is detemiined by adding together the
tota' points in both subtotals. j 50 points were added to the total score so as
to get a positive value. Hence the result of the final score ranged from O to
125. A lower score on this questionnaire represents more satisfaction. Getting a score from 95 to 125 signifies that the members in a group were comfortable with their present peer group. Ifthe score is between 25 and 94,
it reports significant problems fri relationship to the peer group. The problem may be caused by an unpleasant job situation that force one into a less desirable work peer group.
C. Procedure A pretest was first given to the subjects to assess their knowledge in Logo
program. The study was perfonned one week after the pretest. There were two
different learning approaches applied to two different sets of subjects. In each of the teaming approaches. the subjects were divided into two groups of equal
ability according to the pretest scores. At the end of stidy, two questionnaires
and a posttest were collected from each subject. The questionnaires were
administered in classroom and students had 40 minutes to complete the questionnaires.
D. Data Analysis
A 2x2 factorial design was used in this study, with instructional method (collaborative versus individual) and student ability (high versus low) as the
independent variable. The dependent vañables were computer programming achievement assessed by achievement psttest scores and attitude assessed by
Ej
two questioruaires. At the end of this research, all students participating in the
study individually completed a posttest. It was assumed that the time allotted
for this study, 6 weeks, was appropriate in determining the effects of collaborative
learning on student achievement and attitude, and that students
completed evaluative instruments honestly. For consolidating the results and investigating in detail, i 6 students were randomly selected to do an interview at the end of treatment.
The achievement mean of the individual group in pretest (M = 28.94, SD = 9.18, n = 79) was not significantly different from the mean for students in the collaborative group (M = 28.81, SD
9.35, n = 79). However, in view
of the importance of instructional approach and student ability in accounting
for error variance in posttest scores, data were analyzed using particular
procedure. First, Alpha coefficient of reliability was used to cheek the
reliability of the attitude inventory. Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) then was used to test whether there was a significant difference between groups in the dependent variables. If necessary, a follow-up univariate
analysis was used to investigate whether there was a sigiiificant difference on
the dependent variables between collaborative learning and individual learning.
32
CHAPTER IV RJ3SULT
A. Eactor Analysis of Peer Relationshth Inventory First Factor Analysis of Peer Relatioisbip Attitude was measured. In
Table 3, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy is
0.889 and the Chi-Square of Bartlett's Test Sphericity is significant
(x2
2244.153, df = 300, p 0.05), whereas
the individual interaction between students ability and dependent variables is
significant (F(3,151) = 10.179, p < 0.001) and the individual interaction between learning approach and dependent variables is also significant (F(3,151)
- l2.824,p
B.?
:
NUMBER
( 2)
A
.
Logo
TEST2 IE?
ThST2 : NUMBER
B. TO TEST2
;NUMBER
C. 'ID TEST2
:NUM
D.
D.T
NUMBER
I1J ThST2
JIE?
( 3 )
A. RAN1fl1 -23
B. RANDOM 23.5 C. RANDOM 23 D. RANDOM O 'PEPEAT 5[PR RANDOM 4]"
(5) A.
i
4
2
i
B. 1.2
2
3 3
3
1
C. 3
2
3
5
0
D. O
O
3
2
2
(5) w TESTS 90
thf1J
(IfT;) '
1]
10 ThST5 :NUMBER
2J
REPEAT 4[FD :NUMBERJ
3]
RT :NJJMBER
411
REPEAT 4[FD :NBER RT :NUMBER] END
A.
B.
2i
C.
35
JT
ii
C
::. MI
(15e)
(6)
TO ThST6 :NTMBER
REPEAT 4ftD NUMBER RI 90] REPEAT 3[FD :NUtBER RT 120]
FD A TEST6
100
IibJf?
'
(7)
1D TEST7 :A :B REPEAT 2[FD :A RT :B] REPEAT 2[FD :A LT :B]
F1D
A ThSr7
50 90
'
(8)
TO TEST8 :A :B :C REPEAT 2[FD :A LT :B FD :A] REPEAT 2FJJ :C LT :BJ
FD :A END
b3?
;k msm 20 90 40
E (9)
(15
)
ST9
SIX '
(ft40)
To SIX :NUMBER
REAT 6[
RT 60]
END
( 10)
(40) JLT
ThIANGLE '
'iD TRIANGLE :LENGT}J
REPEAT 3[FD :LENGTH RT 120]
END
*****
ThST1O
Appendix C(1): SCALE OF ATTITL1DES TOWARD COMPUT1R (English version)
SCALE O1' ATTITLIDIS TOWARD COMPUTER Directions: Write your naine in the upper right-hand corner. Then draw circle
indicating how
strongly you agree or disagree
around the
letter(s)
with each statement. SD (Strongly Disagree),
D (Disage), U (Undecided), A (Aeree). SA (Strongly 4gree).
i
Computer programming is not a very interesting subject. SD D 1 want to develop my scientific skills and study this subject more. SD D Computer programming is a very worthwhile and necessary subject. SD D Computer programming makes me feel nervous and uncomfortable. SD D 1 have usually enjoyed studying Computer programming in choo1.
.
2. 3.
4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
LT
A
SA
U A SA U A SA U A SA SD D U A SA 1 don't want to take any more Computer programming than I have to. SD D U A SA Other subjects are more important than Computer programming SD D U A SA I am very calm when studying Computer progranmiing. SD D U A SA have seldom iiked studying Computer programming. SD D U A SA interested in acquiring further knowledge of Computer SD D U A SA
9.
i
i o.
i alTi
programming. Computer programming helps to develop the mind and teaches a person to think
SD D
U
A
12. Computer programming makes me feel uneasy and confused.
SD D
A
13. Computer programming is enjoyable and stimulating to me.
SD D
U U U
i i
.
SA SA
A
SA
A
SA
U U
A
SA
A
SA
A A
SA
SD D
U U
Computer has contributed greatly to the advancement of civilization. SD D
U
SA
20. Computer is one ofmy most dreaded subjects.
SD D
U
I like trying to solve new problems in Computer. 22. I am not motivated to work very hard ori Computer lessons.
SD D
U U U U
A A A A A A
14. I am not willing to take more than the required amount ofComputer SD
D
programming. 15. Computer programming is not especially important in everyday life. SD D 16.
Trying to understand Computer programming doesn't make me
SD D
anxious.
Computer programming is dull and boring. 18. I plan to take as much Computer programming as I can during my i
7.
SD D
SA
education. I 9.
21
23
.
.
Computer is not one of the most important subjects for people to study.
24. I don't get upset when trying to do Computer lessons.
SD D
SD D SD D
SA SA SA SA SA
kppendix C(2): SCALE OF ATTITUDES TOWARD COMPUTER (Cbines vecsion)
±}
-4
L 2.
D
3.
Q
4.
5.
6.
o o
o o
o o
o o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o o
o
o
o
o o
o o
o o
o
o
o
o o
o o
o
o
o o o
o o o o
o
o
o o o o o o o o o o
o
Q ,
o
'
7.
,
8.
,
flkW
Q
lo.
C
o
Q
o
o
o
o
o o
o o
o o
o o
o
o o o o o o o o o o
o o o o o o o o o o
i i.
Q
'
14.
o o o o o
Q
12.
o o o
Q
9.
13.
o o
'
o o o
C
Q
15.
o
C
16.
o o
C
17.
C
18.
o o
C
19.
D
20.
C
21.
C
22.
23.
24.
'
o o o
Q
C
o
o
o o o o o o o o
Appendix D(1): Index of Peer Relations (English version) INDEX OF PEER RELATIONS Jiirections: This questionnaire is designed to measure the way you feel about the people you werk, play, or aecociate with most ofthe time, yourpeer group. It is not a test o there are no
right or wrong answers. Answer each item below as carefully and as accurately as you can by placing a number beside each one asfoiows. i = Rarely or none ofthe time, 2 = A little ofthe time. 3
Some ofthe time, 4
A good part ofthe time, 5 - Most or all ofthe time
I get along very well with my peers.
i
2
3
4
5
2.
My peers act ¿ike they don't
i
2
3
4
5
3.
My peers treat ¡ne badly.
i
2
3
4
5
4.
Mypeersreallyseemtorespectme.
1
2
3
4
5
5.
I dont feel like I am "part of the group.
i
2
3
4
5
6.
My peers are a bunch of snobs.
I
2
3
4
5
7.
My peers really understand inc.
I
2
3
4
5
8.
My peers seem to like nie very much.
2
3
4
5
9.
I really
I
2
3
4
5
lo.
I hate my present peer group.
1
2
3
4
5
11
My peers seem to like having me around.
I
2
3
4
5
12.
I really like my present peer group.
I
2
3
4
5
13
I really feel like I am disliked by my peers.
I
2
3
4
5
Z4.
i wish I had a different peer group.
I
2
3
4
5
1 5.
My peers are very nice to me.
I
2
3
4
5
I 6.
My peers seem to took up to me.
i
2
3
4
5
I 7.
My peers think I am important to them.
i
2
3
4
5
I 8.
My peers are a real source ofpleasure to me.
i
2
3
4
5
19.
My peers don't seem to even notice me.
I
2
3
4
5
20.
i
I
2
3
4
5
21
My peers regard my ideas and opinions very highly.
1
2
3
4
5
22.
I feel like I am an important member ofmy peer group.
1
2
3
4
5
23.
1 cant stand to be around my peer group.
i
2
3
4
5
24.
My peers seem to look down on me.
1
2
3
4
5
25.
My peers really do not interest me.
I
2
3
4
5
i
.
.
.
.
feel "left out! ofmy
care about me.
peer group.
wish I were not part of this peer group.
Appendix D(2): Index of Peer Relations (Chinese version)
# i
.
C O O O O
-H
2. 3.
it°
4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.
'o.
o
o
11. 12.
°
o
13.
o
14. 15.
16. 17.
*J
tir
18. o
19.
o
20.
Q
21.
o
22. o
23. 24.
o
25.
o
*****
*
t
O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O o o o o o o o
O O O O O O O O o O o o o o o o o o o o
o o o ,
O O O O C O O O O C O O O
o O o o o o o o o o o o
O O O O O O O O O O O O O o O o o o o o o o o o o
* O O
O O O O O O O O O O O o O o o o o o o o o o o
Appendix E(i): Interview Form (English version)
Interview Form
i.
Do you prefer to work alone or with a partner to learn computer program?
Alone
Partner
Same with either
Depend on topic
Why?
2.
Do you think you would have learned more computer program ifyou had worked alone or with a
partner? Alone
Partner
Same with either
Depend on subject
Why?
3-
Do you think you would have enj oyed this course more if you bad worked alone or with a parther? Alone
Parther
Same with either
Depend on topic
Why?
4.
Do you think you would have more motivation ifyou had worked alone or with a partner?
Alone
Partner
Same with either
Depend on subject
Why?
5.
Do you think computer knowledge is important?
Yes
No
Do you think computer programming is important?
Yes
No
Do you fear for computer?
Yes
No
Do you fear for writing computer program?
Yes
No
Ifdifferent, why?
6.
lfdifferent. why?
*** End oftuterview
Appendiï E(2): Interview Form (Chinese version)
1.
2.
flfIJ
-
;_
-*
3.
-d
4H
4. 11? w
-
5.
:
n;F
'
6.
;
'
P
***
***
'.
? 'w
