Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning is a successful teaching strategy in which small teams, each with students of different levels of ability, use a variety of learning activities to improve their understanding of a subject. Each member of a team is responsible not only for learning what is taught but also for helping teammates learn, thus creating an atmosphere of achievement. Students work through the assignment until all group members successfully understand and complete it. Cooperative efforts result in participants striving for mutual benefit so that all group members: gain from each other's efforts. (Your success benefits me and my success benefits you.) recognize that all group members share a common fate. (We all sink or swim together here.) know that one's performance is mutually caused by oneself and one's team members. (We can not do it without you.) feel proud and jointly celebrate when a group member is recognized for achievement. (We all congratulate you on your accomplishment!).

Why use Cooperative Learning? Elements of Cooperative Learning Class Activities that use Cooperative Learning

Why use Cooperative Learning?

Research has shown that cooperative learning techniques: promote student learning and academic achievement increase student retention enhance student satisfaction with their learning experience help students develop skills in oral communication develop students' social skills

promote student self-esteem help to promote positive race relations

5 Elements of Cooperative Learning

It is only under certain conditions that cooperative efforts may be expected to be more productive than competitive and individualistic efforts. Those conditions are:

1. Positive Interdependence
(sink or swim together) Each group member's efforts are required and indispensable for group success Each group member has a unique contribution to make to the joint effort because of his or her resources and/or role and task responsibilities

2. Face-to-Face Interaction
(promote each other's success) Orally explaining how to solve problems Teaching one's knowledge to other Checking for understanding Discussing concepts being learned Connecting present with past learning

3. Individual & Group Accountability

( no hitchhiking! no social loafing) Keeping the size of the group small. The smaller the size of the group, the greater the individual accountability may be. Giving an individual test to each student. Randomly examining students orally by calling on one student to present his or her group's work to the teacher (in the presence of the group) or to the entire class. Observing each group and recording the frequency with which each member-contributes to the group's work. Assigning one student in each group the role of checker. The checker asks other group members to explain the reasoning and rationale underlying group answers. Having students teach what they learned to someone else.

4. Interpersonal & Small-Group Skills

Social o o o o o skills must be taught: Leadership Decision-making Trust-building Communication Conflict-management skills

5. Group Processing
Group members discuss how well they are achieving their goals and maintaining effective working relationships Describe what member actions are helpful and not helpful Make decisions about what behaviors to continue or change

Class Activities that use Cooperative Learning

Most of these structures are developed by Dr. Spencer Kagan and his associates at Kagan Publishing and Professional Development. For resources and professional development information on Kagan Structures, please visit: www.KaganOnline.com

1. Jigsaw - Groups with five students are set up. Each group member is assigned some unique material to learn and then to teach to his group members. To help in the learning students across the class working on the same sub-section get together to decide what is important and how to teach it. After practice in these "expert" groups the original groups reform and students teach each other. (Wood, p. 17) Tests or assessment follows.

2. Think-Pair-Share - Involves a three step cooperative structure. During the first step individuals think silently about a question posed by the instructor. Individuals pair up during the second step and exchange thoughts. In the third step, the pairs share their responses with other pairs, other teams, or the entire group.

3. Three-Step Interview (Kagan) -

Each member of a team chooses another member to be a partner. During the first step individuals interview their partners by asking clarifying questions. During the second step partners reverse the roles. For the final step, members share their partner's response with the team.

4.

RoundRobin Brainstorming (Kagan)- Class is divided into small groups (4 to 6) with one person appointed as the recorder. A question is posed with many answers and students are given time to think about answers. After the "think time," members of the team share responses with one another round robin style. The

recorder writes down the answers of the group members. The person next to the recorder starts and each person in the group in order gives an answer until time is called.

5. Three-minute review - Teachers stop any time during a lecture or discussion and give teams three minutes to review what has been said, ask clarifying questions or answer questions.

6. Numbered Heads Together (Kagan) - A team of four is established. Each member is given numbers of 1, 2, 3, 4. Questions are asked of the group. Groups work together to answer the question so that all can verbally answer the question. Teacher calls out a number (two) and each two is asked to give the answer.

7. Team Pair Solo (Kagan)- Students do problems first as a team, then with a partner, and finally on their own. It is designed to motivate students to tackle and succeed at problems which initially are beyond their ability. It is based on a simple notion of mediated learning. Students can do more things with help (mediation) than they can do alone. By allowing them to work on problems they could not do alone, first as a team and then with a partner, they progress to a point they can do alone that which at first they could do only with help.

8. Circle the Sage (Kagan)- First the teacher polls the class to see which students have a special knowledge to share. For example the teacher may ask who in the class was able to solve a difficult math homework question, who had visited Mexico, who knows the chemical reactions involved in how salting the streets help dissipate snow. Those students (the sages) stand and spread out in the room. The teacher then has the rest of the classmates each surround a sage, with no two members of the same team going to the same sage. The sage explains what they know while the classmates listen, ask questions, and take notes. All students then return to their teams. Each in turn, explains what they learned. Because each one has gone to a different sage, they compare notes. If there is disagreement, they stand up as a team. Finally, the disagreements are aired and resolved.

9. Partners (Kagan) - The class is divided into teams of four. Partners move to one side of the room. Half of each team is given an assignment to master to be able to teach the other half. Partners work to learn and can consult with other partners working on the same material. Teams go back together with each set of partners teaching the other set. Partners quiz and tutor teammates. Team reviews how well they learned and taught and how they might improve the process.

Credits:
David and Roger Johnson. "Cooperative Learning." [Online] 15 October 2001. <http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cl.html>.

David and Roger Johnson. "An Overview of Cooperative Learning." [Online] 15 October 2001. <http://www.clcrc.com/pages/overviewpaper.html>. Howard Community College's Teaching Resources. "Ideas on Cooperative Learning and the use of Small Groups." [Online] 15 October 2001. <http://www.howardcc.edu/profdev/resources/learning/groups1.htm>. Kagan, S. Kagan Structures for Emotional Intelligence. Kagan Online Magazine. 2001, 4(4).

http://www.kaganonline.com/Newsletter/index.html

Reference
Kagan, Spencer. Cooperative Learning. San Clemente, CA: Kagan Publishing, 1994. www.KaganOnline.com

Cooperative learning
Cooperative learning is an approach to organizing classroom activities into academic and social learning experiences. Students must work in groups to complete tasks collectively. Unlike individual learning, students learning cooperatively capitalize on one anothers resources and skills (asking one another for information, evaluating one anothers ideas, monitoring one anothers work, etc.).[1][2] Furthermore, the teacher's role changes from giving information to facilitating students' learning. [3][4]Everyone succeeds when the group succeeds.

History
Prior to World War II, social theorists such as Allport, Watson, Shaw, and Mead began establishing cooperative learning theory after finding that group work was more effective and efficient in quantity, quality, and overall productivity when compared to working alone.[5] However, it wasnt until 1937 when researchers May and Doob[6] found that people who cooperate and work together to achieve shared goals, were more successful in attaining outcomes, than those who strived independently to complete the same goals. Furthermore, they found that independent achievers had a greater likelihood of displaying competitive behaviours. Philosophers and psychologists in the 1930s and 40s such as John Dewey, Kurt Lewin, and Morton Deutsh also influenced the cooperative learning theory practiced today.[7] Dewey believed it was important that students develop knowledge and social skills that could be used outside of the classroom, and in the democratic society. This theory portrayed students as active recipients of knowledge by discussing information and answers in groups, engaging in the learning process together rather than being passive receivers of information (e.g. teacher talking, students listening). Lewins contributions to cooperative learning were based on the ideas of establishing relationships between group members in order to successfully carry out and achieve the learning goal. Deutshs contribution to cooperative learning was positive social interdependence, the idea that the student is responsible for contributing to group knowledge.[7] Since then, David and Roger Johnson have

been actively contributing to the cooperative learning theory. In 1975, they identified that cooperative learning promoted mutual liking, better communication, high acceptance and support, as well as demonstrated an increase in a variety of thinking strategies among individuals in the group.[8] Students who showed to be more competitive lacked in their interaction and trust with others, as well as in their emotional involvement with other students. In 1994 Johnson and Johnson published the 5 elements (positive interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face interaction, social skills, and processing) essential for effective group learning, achievement, and higher-order social, personal and cognitive skills (e.g., problem solving, reasoning, decision-making, planning, organizing, and reflecting).[9]

Types
Formal cooperative learning is structured, facilitated, and monitored by the educator over time and is used to achieve group goals in task work (e.g. completing a unit). Any course material or assignment can be adapted to this type of learning, and groups can vary from 2-6 people with discussions lasting from a few minutes up to a period. Types of formal cooperative learning strategies include jigsaw, assignments that involve group problem solving and decision making, laboratory or experiment assignments, and peer review work (e.g. editing writing assignments). Having experience and developing skill with this type of learning often facilitates informal and base learning.[10] Informal cooperative learning incorporates group learning with passive teaching by drawing attention to material through small groups throughout the lesson or by discussion at the end of a lesson, and typically involves groups of two (e.g. turn-to-your-partner discussions). These groups are often temporary and can change from lesson to lesson (very much unlike formal learning where 2 students may be lab partners throughout the entire semester contributing to one anothers knowledge of science). Discussions typically have four components that include formulating a response to questions asked by the educator, sharing responses to the questions asked with a partner, listening to a partners responses to the same question, and creating a new well-developed answer. This type of learning enables the student to process, consolidate, and retain more information learned.[10] In group-based cooperative learning, these peer groups gather together over the long term (e.g. over the course of a year, or several years such as in high school or post-secondary studies) to develop and contribute to one anothers knowledge mastery on a topic by regularly discussing material, encouraging one another, and supporting the academic and personal success of group members. Base group learning is effective for learning complex subject matter over the course or semester and establishes caring, supportive peer relationships, which in turn motivates and strengthens the students commitment to the groups education while increasing self-esteem and self worth. Base group approaches also make the students accountable to educating their peer group in the event that a member was absent for a lesson. This is effective both for individual learning, as well as social support.

[edit] Elements
Brown & Ciuffetelli Parker (2009) and Siltala (2010) discuss the 5 basic and essential elements to cooperative learning:[11] [12] 1. Positive interdependence

Students must fully participate and put forth effort within their group Each group member has a task/role/responsibility therefore must believe that they are responsible for their learning and that of their group

2. Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction

Member promote each others success Students explain to one another what they have or are learning and assist one another with understanding and completion of assignments

3. Individual Accountability

Each student must demonstrate master of the content being studied Each student is accountable for their learning and work, therefore eliminating social loafing

4. Social Skills

Social skills that must be taught in order for successful cooperative learning to occur Skills include effective communication, interpersonal and group skills i. Leadership ii. Decision-making iii. Trust-building iv. Communication v. Conflict-management skills

5. Group Processing

Every so often groups must assess their effectiveness and decide how it can be improved

In order for student achievement to improve considerably, two characteristics must be present a) Students are working towards a group goal or recognition and b) success is reliant on each individuals learning[13]
a. When designing cooperative learning tasks and reward structures, individual responsibility and accountability must be identified. Individuals must know exactly what their responsibilities are and that they are accountable to the group in order to reach their goal. b. Positive Interdependence among students in the task. All group members must be involved in order for the group to complete the task. In order for this to occur each member must have a task that they are responsible for which cannot be completed by any other group member.

[edit] Research supporting cooperative learning

Research on cooperative learning demonstrated overwhelmingly positive results and confirmed that cooperative modes are cross-curricular.[14] Cooperative learning requires students to engage in group activities that increase learning and adds other important dimensions.[11] The positive outcomes include: academic gains, improved race relations and increased personal and social development.[11] Brady & Tsay (2010) report that students who fully participated in group activities, exhibited collaborative behaviours, provided constructive feedback and cooperated with their group had a higher likelihood of receiving higher test scores and course grades at the end of the semester. Results from Brady & Tsays (2010) study support the notion that cooperative learning is an active pedagogy that fosters higher academic achievement (p. 85). Slavin states the following regarding research on cooperative learning which corresponds with Brady & Tsays (2010) findings.[13]

Students demonstrate academic achievement Cooperative learning methods are usually equally effective for all ability levels. Cooperative learning is affective for all ethnic groups Student perceptions of one another are enhanced when given the opportunity to work with one another Cooperative learning increases self esteem and self concept Ethnic and physically/mentally handicapped barriers are broken down allowing for positive interactions and friendships to occur

According to Siltala cooperative learning is significant in business field. [15]

Cooperative learning can be seen as characteristic for innovation businesses. The five stage division on cooperative learning creates a useful method of analysing learning in innovation businesses. Innovativity connected to cooperative learning seems to make the creation of innovations possible.

[edit] Limitations
Cooperative Learning has many limitations that could cause the process to be more complicated then first perceived. Sharan (2010) discusses the issue regarding the constant evolution of cooperative learning is discussed as a threat. Due to the fact that cooperative learning is constantly changing, there is the possibility that teachers may become confused and lack complete understanding of the method. Teachers implementing cooperative learning may also be challenged with resistance and hostility from students who believe that they are being held back by their slower teammates or by students who are less confident and feel that they are being ignored or demeaned by their team.[7]
----------------------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_learning------------------------------

THE EFFECTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING METHODS ON ACHIEVEMENT, RETENTION, AND ATTITUDES OF HOME ECONOMICS STUDENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA Rosini B. Abu, Assistant Professor Jabatan Pendidikan Fakulti Pengajian Pendidikan Universiti Pertanian Malaysia Jim Flowers, Associate Professor Department of Agricultural and Extension Education Box 7607 North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina 27695-7607

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the cooperative learning approach of Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) on the achievement of content knowledge, retention, and attitudes toward the teaching method. Cooperative learning was compared to noncooperative (competitive) learning classroom structure using a quasi-experimental design. An achievement test, consisting of items from the state competency test-item bank for the course, and an attitude questionnaire were administered immediately following instruction on the unit of special nutritional needs. A retention test was administered three weeks following the achievement test. California Achievement Test scores and first semester grades in home economics classes were used as covariates to adjust for possible preexisting differences between the groups. Multivariate analysis of covariance showed no significant difference among the dependent variables (achievement and retention) between the teaching methods used. There was also no significant difference in student attitudes toward the teaching methods. Teachers have the option of structuring lessons competitively, individualistically, or cooperatively. The decisions teachers make in structuring lessons can influence students'

interactions with others, knowledge, and attitudes (Carson, 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1987). In a competitively structured classroom, students engage in a win-lose struggle in an effort to determine who is best (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). In competitive classrooms students perceive that they can obtain their goals only if the other students in the class fail to obtain their own goals (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1986). Students in independently structured classrooms work by themselves to accomplish goals unrelated to those of the other students (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). In a cooperative learning classroom students work together to attain group goals that cannot be obtained by working alone or competitively. In this classroom structure, students discuss subject matter, help each other learn, and provide encouragement for member of the group (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1986). Cooperative learning, as an instructional methodology provides opportunities for students to develop skills in group interactions and in working with others that are needed in today's world (Carol, 1988; Imel, 1989; Kerka, 1990). According to Johnson and Johnson (1989), cooperative learning experiences promote more positive attitudes toward the instructional experience than competitive or individualistic methodologies. In addition, cooperative learning should result in positive effects on student achievement and retention of information (Dishon & O'Leary, 1984; Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Slavin, 1991). According to McKeachie (1986), students are more likely to acquire critical thinking skills and metacognitive learning strategies, such as learning how to learn, in small group cooperative settings as opposed to listening to lectures. Theoretical Framework, Conceptual Base, and Related Literature According to Slavin (1987), there are two major theoretical perspectives related to cooperative learning -- motivational and cognitive. The motivational theories of cooperative learning emphasize the students' incentives to do academic work, while the cognitive theories emphasize the effects of working together. Motivational theories related to cooperative learning focus on reward and goal structures. One of the elements of cooperative learning is positive interdependence, where students perceive that their success or failure lies within their working together as a group (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1986). From a motivational perspective, "cooperative goal structure creates a situation in which the only way group members can attain their personal goals is if the group is successful" (Slavin, 1990, p. 14). Therefore, in order to attain their personal goals, students are likely to encourage members within the group to do whatever helps the group to succeed and to help one another with a group task. There are two cognitive theories that are directly applied to cooperative learning, the developmental and the elaboration theories (Slavin, 1987). The developmental theories assume that interaction among students around appropriate tasks increases their mastery of critical concepts (Damon, 1984). When students interact with other students, they have to explain and discuss each other's perspectives, which leads to greater understanding of the material to be learned. The struggle to resolve potential conflicts during collaborative activity results in the development of higher levels of understanding (Slavin, 1990). The elaboration theory suggests that one of the most effective means of learning is to explain the material to someone else. Cooperative learning activities enhance elaborative thinking and more frequent giving and

receiving of explanations, which has the potential to increase depth of understanding, the quality of reasoning, and the accuracy of long term retention (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1986). Therefore, the use of cooperative learning methods should lead to improved student learning and retention from both the developmental and cognitive theoretical bases. Several studies have examined the effects of cooperative learning methods on student learning. Humphreys, Johnson, and Johnson (1982) compared cooperative, competitive, and individualistic strategies in science classes and found that students who were taught by cooperative methods learned and retained significantly more information than students taught by the other two methods. Sherman and Thomas (1986) found similar results in a study involving high school general mathematics classes taught by cooperative and individualistic methods. Allen and Van Sickle (1984) used STAD as the experimental treatment in a study involving low achieving students. They found that the cooperative learning group scored significantly higher on a world geography test. Perrault (1982/1983) found that cooperative learning resulted in significantly higher achievement in industrial arts students at the knowledge and comprehension levels of Bloom's taxonomy, but not at the application level when compared to students taught by competitive methods. In a study in which nutrition was taught to both elementary and secondary students using a cooperative learning strategy, Wodarski, Adelson, Todd, and Wodarski (1980) found significant gains between the pretest and posttest scores. The researchers concluded that cooperative learning was an effective method of teaching nutrition. In a review of 46 studies related to cooperative learning, Slavin (1983) found that cooperative learning resulted in significant positive effects in 63% of the studies, and only two studies reported higher achievement for the comparison group. Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, and Skon (1981) conducted a meta-analysis of 122 studies related to cooperative learning and concluded that there was strong evidence for the superiority of cooperative learning in promoting achievement over competitive and individualistic strategies. Johnson and Ahlgren (1976) examined the relationships between students' attitudes toward cooperation, competition, and their attitudes toward education. The results of the study indicated that student cooperativeness, and not competitiveness, was positively related to being motivated to learn. Humphreys, Johnson, and Johnson (1982) also found that students studying physical science in a cooperative learning treatment group rated their learning experience more positively than did students in competitive and individualistic treatment groups. Tjosvold, Marine, and Johnson (1977) found that cooperative learning strategies promoted positive attitudes toward both didactic and inquiry methods of teaching science, and students taught by cooperative strategies believed they had learned more from the lesson than did students taught by competitive strategies. In a study involving elementary and secondary students who were taught nutrition, Wodarski, et al., (1980) found that 95% of the elementary students enjoyed the cooperative learning activities and that they had learned a lot about nutrition. Statement of the Problem While cooperative learning as an instructional methodology is an option for teachers, it is currently the least frequently used (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). More than 85% of the instruction in schools consists of lectures, seatwork, or competition in which students are isolated from one another and forbidden to interact (Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, & Roy, 1984). Goodlad (1984)

reported that most classroom time is spent in "teacher talk", with only 1% of the students' classroom time used for reasoning about or expressing an opinion. Group work has been used extensively in home economics to provide practice in acquiring both competence and skills in interpersonal relations. The introduction of cooperative learning strategies in home economics has potential for improving the group activities commonly used in these classes (Hall & Paolucci, 1972). While empirical evidence supports the use of cooperative learning with a variety of subject areas and age groups, the extent to which these methods are beneficial in home economics education is unknown. Without empirical evidence to support the effectiveness of cooperative education in home economics, it is likely to be ignored as an instructional methodology by home economics educators. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the cooperative learning approach of Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) on the achievement, retention of information, and attitudes toward the instructional method of selected home economics students. The following research questions provided the specific focus for the study:
1. Was there a difference in achievement, as measured by the researcher developed achievement test for students who have been taught by the cooperative learning method, STAD, and those who were taught by noncooperative methods? 2. Was there a difference in retention of information, as measured by the researcher developed retention test administered three weeks after the end of instruction for students who have been taught by the cooperative learning method, STAD, and those who were taught by noncooperative methods? 3. Was there a difference in the attitudes toward the teaching method used for students who have been taught by the cooperative learning method, STAD, and those who were taught by noncooperative methods?

Research Methods and Procedures The population for this study consisted of home economics students enrolled in a Food and Nutrition course in high schools in the central region of North Carolina. Four schools that offered two or more sections of the food and nutrition course agreed to participate in the study. The design of study was quasi-experimental with 91 students in the cooperative learning (STAD) group and 106 students in the non-cooperative learning group. According to Hays (1973), samples of this size would allow the researchers to detect differences between the treatment groups larger than 0.50 standard deviations at an alpha level of .05 and a desired power of .90. Once classes from each participating school were identified, they were randomly assigned to cooperative and noncooperative treatment groups. In order to account for possible pre-existing differences in overall ability between the treatment groups, California Achievement Test scores and first semester grades in home economics were used as covariate measures. In order to control for the "teacher quality" variable, both groups were taught by the regular home economics teachers who were provided inservice in the use of STAD by an expert on cooperative learning. Teachers were also provided detailed instructions

for conducting learning activities in both the cooperative and noncooperative groups. Both groups were taught the nutrition unit using the same content outline, but students in the cooperative learning group completed learning activities in small heterogeneous groups, while the students in the non-cooperative group completed activities individually. The unit was taught to both groups over a two-week period. An instrument to measure student achievement and retention was developed from items related to the unit of instruction in the state-adopted competency test-item bank. Content validity of the items was assessed at the time they were developed for the test-item bank, and was verified by home economics teachers, a home economics teacher educator, and a state consultant for home economics. Items related to each instructional objective were selected for the instrument. The instrument was pilot tested to establish reliability in a school not selected to participate in the study. The Kuder-Richardson coefficient of internal consistency for the instrument was .87. The test was administered to both groups at the end of the instructional unit. Three weeks later, the test was administered again to the students to determine retention of information. The instrument used to measure attitudes toward the method of instruction was developed and used in a similar study by Flowers (1986/1987). Content validity of the attitude instrument was established by faculty at the University of Illinois who had experise in the development of attitude instruments. The instrument had a coefficient of internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) of .89. The attitude instrument was administered at the end of the unit of instruction. Findings and Conclusions Preliminary analyses of covariate measures (California Achievement Test scores and average grade in home economics) showed that students in the treatment groups were not significantly different (see Table 1). Moderate relationships, with correlation coefficients ranging from .29 to .54, were found between the covariate measures and the dependent variables of achievement and retention. These relationships supported the use of the covariate measures used in this study. Table 1 Comparison of CAT Scores and Home Economics Grade by Teaching Method
CAT Method Cooperative Noncooperative n 87 106 M 741.33 741.55 SD 30.21 29.36 Average M 79.92 82.30 grade SD 9.58 10.23

t = 0.05

p = .96

t = 1.67

p = .10

Student achievement was measured by the number of correct responses on the 33-item achievement test developed by the researchers. The mean scores for the treatment groups were adjusted by the covariate measures to statistically control for preexisting differences. The adjusted mean score for the cooperative learning group was 19.61, while the adjusted mean score for the noncooperative treatment group was 19.52 (see Table 2). The test of retention was administered three weeks following the achievement test. The adjusted mean score for the cooperative learning group on the retention test and the noncooperative group were very similar. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to analyze the data related to the dependent variables of student achievement and retention of information. MANCOVA showed no significant difference among the dependent variable between the teaching methods used [Hotelling's T = .00015, F(2, 18) = 0.14, p = .99]. Since the multivariate analysis showed no difference between the treatment groups, no further analyses were performed related to student achievement or retention. Table 2 Mean Student Achievement and Retention Scores by Teaching Method
Achievement Test Retention Test

Method

Observed mean 19.38 19.75

Adjusted mean 19.61 19.52

Observed mean 18.27 18.63

Adjusted mean 18.49 18.41

Cooperative Noncooperative

90 104

Student attitude toward the teaching method was not included in the multivariate analysis because it was not assumed to be correlated with the other dependent variables. Pearson product moment correlation coefficients of .06 and .10 confirmed that student attitudes were not related to achievement or retention, respectively. The mean attitude score for students in the cooperative learning group was 81.45 (sd = 15.96), while the mean score for students in the noncooperative group was 77.00 (sd = 15.21). A t-test showed no significant difference in attitudes toward the teaching method between the groups (t = 1.84, df = 164, p = .07).

Based upon the findings of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:
1. The cooperative learning approach is no more or less effective than the noncooperative learning approach with regard to home economics student achievement or student retention of information. 2. The cooperative learning approach is no more or less effective than the noncooperative learning approach with regard to home economics students' attitudes toward the method of instruction.

Implications and Recommendations While cooperative learning was not found to be more effective than noncooperative learning with respect to home economics students' achievement and retention in this study, the literature suggests there may be additional reasons to use cooperative learning. Certainly, the ability to work with others within a group and to develop interpersonal skills may be justification for using cooperative learning strategies. This study has shown that cooperative learning methods were as effective as noncooperative methods with regard to achievement and retention, so concerns about the effectiveness of cooperative learning methods in these areas have been addressed. Students taught by cooperative methods should perform equally as well as students taught by noncooperative methods. In addition, student attitudes toward cooperative learning are similar to noncooperative learning. Additional research should be conducted to increase the generalizability of the findings to home economics education. Studies in which cooperative learning strategies are used for a semester or an entire year should be conducted to determine if student achievement is increased with additional experience in using cooperative learning. Future research should also focus on comparisons between different models of cooperative learning, as well as comparisons with noncooperative learning approaches in order to determine if other cooperative learning models are equally effective in producing desired student outcomes. References Allen, W.H. & Van Sickle, R.L. (1984). Learning teams and low achievers. Social Education, 48, 60-64. Carol, A. (1988). High school graduates in entry level jobs: What do employers want? (Eric Digest No. 40). New York: Reproduction Service No. ED 293972. Carson, L. (1990). Cooperative learning in the home economics classroom. Journal of Home Economics, 82(4), 37-41. Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: The untapped potential. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 5, 331-343. Dishon, D. & O'Leary, P. (1984). A guidebook for cooperative learning: A technique for creating more effective schools. Holmes Beach, FL: Learning Publications.

Flowers, J.L. (1987). Effects of the problem solving approach on achievement, retention, and attitudes of vocational agriculture students in Illinois. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 3285A. Goodlad, J.I. (1984). A place called school. New York: McGraw Hill. Hall, O.A., & Paolucci, B. (1972). Teaching home economics. New York: John Wiley & Son, Inc. Hays, W.L. (1973). Statistics for the social sciences. New York: Holt Rinehart, and Winston. Humphreys, B., Johnson, R.T., & Johnson, D.W. (1982). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning on students' achievement in science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 19(5), 351-356. Imel, S. (1989). Employers' expectations of vocational education. (Eric Digest No. 90). Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Production Service No. ED 318912). Johnson, D.W. & Ahlgren, A. (1976). Relationship between student attitudes about cooperation and competition and attitudes toward schooling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(1), 92102. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1987). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1989). Leading the cooperative school. Edina, MN: Interaction. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1990). Social skills for successful group work. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 29-33. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic. Third Edition. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Holubec, E.J. (1986). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Holubec, E.J., & Roy, P. (1984). Circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Johnson, D.W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R.T., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62.

Kerka, S. (1990). Job related basic skills. (Eric Digest No. 94). Columbus, Ohio: ERIC Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. (ERIC Document Production Service No. ED 318912. McKeachie, W.J. (1986). Teaching tips: A guidebook for the beginning college teacher. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company. Perreault, R.J. (1983). An experimental comparison of cooperative learning to noncooperative learning and their effects on cognitive achievement in junior high industrial arts laboratories. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 43, 3830A. Sherman, L.W. & Thomas, M. (1986). Mathematics achievement in cooperative goal-structured high school classrooms. Journal of Educational Research, 70(3), 169-172. Slavin, R.E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase achievement? Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429-445. Slavin, R.E. (1987). Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperative learning: A reconciliation. Child Development, 58, 1161-1167. Slavin, R.E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Slavin, R.E. (1991). Student team learning: A practical guide to cooperative learning. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association. Tjosvold, D., Marine, P., & Johnson, D.W. (1977). The effects of cooperation and competition on student reactions to inquiry and didactic science teaching. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 11(4), 281-288. Wodarski, L.A., Adelson, C.L., Todd, M.T., & Wodarski, J.S. (1980). Teaching nutrition by teams-games-tournaments. Journal of Nutrition Education, 12(2), 61-65.
------------------------------------http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/JVTE/v13n2/Abu.html---------------------------

Cooperative Learning
Original module developed by Rebecca Teed, John McDaris, and Cary Roseth

Enhanced by KimMarie McGoldrick with assistance from Jim Cooper, Dan Marburger, Jennifer Rhoads, Karl Smith

What is Cooperative Learning?

Cooperative Learning involves structuring classes around small groups that work together in such a way that each group member's success is dependent on the group's success. There are different kinds of groups for different situations, but they all balance some key elements that distinguish cooperative learning from competitive or individualistic learning. Cooperative learning can also be contrasted with what it is not. Cooperation is not having students sit side-by-side at the same table to talk with each other as they do their individual assignments. Cooperation is not assigning a report to a group of students where one student does all the work and the others put their names on the product as well. Cooperation involves much more than being physically near other students, discussing material, helping, or sharing material with other students. There is a crucial difference between simply putting students into groups to learn and in structuring cooperative interdependence among students. Learn more about cooperative learning

Why Use Cooperative Learning?

Extensive research has compared cooperative learning with traditional classroom instruction using the same teachers, curriculum, and assessments. On the average:

Students who engage in cooperative learning learn significantly more, remember it longer, and develop better critical-thinking skills than their counterparts in traditional lecture classes. Students enjoy cooperative learning more than traditional lecture classes, so they are more likely to attend classes and finish the course. Students are going to go on to jobs that require teamwork. Cooperative learning helps students develop the skills necessary to work on projects too difficult and complex for any one person to do in a reasonable amount of time. Cooperative learning processes prepare students to assess outcomes linked to accreditation.

Learn more about reasons to use cooperative learning

How to Use Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning exercises can be as simple as a five minute in class exercise or as complex as a project which crosses class periods. These can be described more generally in terms of low, medium, and high faculty/student time investment.
Cooperative learning can be used across a wide range of classroom settings ranging from small to large lecture, as well as in online classes.

No matter what the setting is, properly designing and implementing cooperative learning involves five key steps. Following these steps is critical to ensuring that the five key elements that differentiate cooperative learning from simply putting students into groups are met. Learn more about how to use cooperative learning

Cooperative Learning Techniques

Cooperative learning techniques can be loosely categorized by the skill that each enhances (Barkley, Cross and Major, 2005), although it is important to recognize that many cooperative learning exercises can be developed to fit within multiple categories. Categories include: discussion, reciprocal teaching, graphic organizers, writing and problem solving. Each category includes a number of potential structures to guide the development of a cooperative learning exercise. For example, the category of problemsolving helps to develop strategic and analytical skills and includes exercises such as the send-a-problem, three-stay one-stray, structured problem solving, and analytical teams. -----------------------------http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/cooperative/index.html-------------------------

Archived Information

Number 1 June 1992

Cooperative Learning
WHAT IS IT? Cooperative learning is a successful teaching strategy in which small teams, each with students of different levels of ability, use a variety of learning activities to improve their understanding of a subject. Each member of a team is responsible not only for learning what is taught but also for helping teammates learn, thus creating an atmosphere of achievement.

WHY USE IT? Documented results include improved academic achievement, improved behavior and attendance, increased self-confidence and motivation, and increased liking of school and classmates. Cooperative learning is also relatively easy to implement and is inexpensive.

HOW DOES IT WORK? Here are some typical strategies that can be used with any subject, in almost any grade, and without a special curriculum:

Group Investigations are structured to emphasize higher-order thinking skills such as analysis and evaluation. Students work to produce a group project, which they may have a hand in selecting. STAD (Student Teams-Achievement Divisions) is used in grades 2-12. Students with varying academic abilities are assigned to 4- or 5-member teams in order to study what has been initially taught by the teacher and to help each reach his or her highest level of achievement. Students are then tested individually. Teams earn certificates or other recognition based on the degree to which all team members have progressed over their past records. Jigsaw II is used with narrative material in grades 3-12. Each team member is responsible for learning a specific part of a topic. After meeting with members of other groups, who are "expert" in the same part, the "experts" return to their own groups and present their findings. Team members then are quizzed on all topics.

----------------------------------------http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/OR/ConsumerGuides/cooplear.html-----------