EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING ON LEARNING OUTCOMES OF SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN MATHEMATICS
Pooja Bhatia M.Ed student BCM College of Education Ludhiana
Kuldip kaur(lecturer) BCM college of Education ludhiana
Abstract
The present study was undertaken to see the effect of cooperative learning on learning outcomes of secondary school students in mathematics. For this investigation experimental study was conducted pre test-post test design was used. Experimental group was taught by S.T.A.D. Technique of cooperative learning and control group was taught with traditional method (lecture).After 20 days treatment, investigator found that there exists no significant difference exists between gain scores of learning out comes in mathematics of experimental and control group secondary school students which show that there exists no significant difference in learning outcomes in mathematics of secondary school students taught through cooperative learning and traditional teaching
Key words: Cooperative Learning, Learning Outcomes – Achievement + Attitude
Introduction
Mathematics – Mathematics is the logical study of size, shape and situation. It is an exact science and involves high cognitive abilities and Power. Mathematics in real sense is science of shape and quality that helps us in solving problem of life, which needs numerations and calculations.
Etymologically “Mathematics” has taken from Greek where “Manthanein” means learning and “Techne” means Art or Simple method. In ancient India, it was known as “Ganita” which means science of calculations.
Mathematics plays an important role in our daily life in the field of research and different professions. Mathematics develops our power of acquiring knowledge, thinking, reasoning, judgement and generalization.
Bhargavas Standard Illustrated Dictionary (1990) says – Mathematics is the science of space and number.
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 team – mates 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 storming for mutual benefits so that all groups members –
1. Gain from each other’s efforts (your success benefits me and my success benefits you)
2. Recognise that all group members share a common fate (we all sink or swim together here)
3. Know that one’s performance is mutually caused by oneself and one’s team members. (we cannot do it without you)
4. Feel proud & jointly celebrate when a group member is recognized for achievement. (We all congratulate you on your accomplishment, Kagan 1994)
Cooperative learning strategy has proven to be effective for all types of students, including academically gifted, mainstream students because it promotes long and fasters respect and friendship among diverse group of students. Infact, the more diversity in a team, the higher the benefits for each student. Peer learn to depend on each other, in a positive way for a variety of long tasks (Colorado, 2007)
The Present study will be one of the techniques i.e. STAD. STAD is one of the techniques of co-operative learning STAD method developed by Robert Salvin (1986). STAD has been described as the simplest of a group of co-operative learning techniques referred to as student team learning methods. In the STAD approach students are assigned to four or five members trains reflecting a heterogeneous grouping of high, overage and achieving students of diverse. Each week, the teacher introduces new material through a lecture, class discussion or some form of a teacher presentation. Team members then collaborate on worksheets designed to expand and reinforce the material taught by the teacher. Team members may
(a) Work on the work sheet in pairs
(b) Take turns quizzing each other
(c) Discuss problems as a group or
Each teacher will then receive answer sheet, making clear to the
students that their task is to learn the concepts not simply fill out the work sheets. Team members are instructed that their task is not understand the assigned material. Armstrong (1997) studied the Effect of Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) cooperative learning strategy on Academic Achievement and attitude towards social studies class on the sample of 47 twelfth – grade Social studies student in two advanced progress American classes an found that the application of STAD in the upper secondary social studies classroom exhibited no statistically significant difference in academic achievement or student attitude towards social studies class.
Slavin, 1994 A- Student team Achievement Division (STAD), students are assigned to four members learning teams that are mixed in performance level, gender, and ethnicity. The teacher present a lesson and then students work with their teams to make sure that all team members have mastered the lesson. Finally, all students take individual quizzes on the material, at which time they may not help one another.
Learning outcomes = Achievement + Attitude –
Achievement is often referred to as the degree of level of success or proficiency attained in academic work.
Achievement is measurement of what a person knows or has learned from formal instruction, usually in school or what one can do after training.
Nordy (2004) defined achievement as accomplishment or performance: the realization of potential
Artswork asu. Edu. (2005) defined achievement as ability to demonstrate accomplishment of some outcomes for which learning were designed.
Attitudes – All individuals have some feelings towards the objects in their environment. Positive or negative, favourable or unfavourable. Their feelings may range from very mild response which barely affect a person, to strong emotional reaction which exert a marked directive effect on the individual and his behavior (Laycock & Vauuro, 1966)
Scholl (2002) defined attitude as a mental predisposition to act that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour, individuals, generally have attitudes that focus on objects people or instructions.
OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
1. To study the Effect of student Team Achievement Division on the Achievement of Students in Mathematics.
2. To study the effect of student teams Achievement Division on the Attitude of Students in Mathematics
HYPOTHESIS
The following Hypothesis was framed by Researcher
1. There will be no significant difference in the achievement of students in Mathematics when taught with cooperative learning and traditional teaching.
2. There will be no significant difference in the Attitude of students towards Mathematics when taught with co-operative learning and Traditional teaching.
TOOLS USED –
The following tools will be used to collect the data from the sample
- L.N. Dubey Mathematics Achievement Test 8th grade (MAT)
- S.C. Gakhar and Rajni Attitude towards Mathematics Scale (ATMS)
SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE -
Sampling is both advantageous and necessary in every research Project.
It is not only difficult but also impossible to include the whole population under study. So research workers have to resort to sampling techniques to select the representative part of population on the basis of which conclusions are drawn and generalization are made about the whole population.
In the present study simple random method of sampling has been used as it happens to be the most convenient method for data collection. For the present investigation sample of the study consisted of 50 students of 8th class randomly chosen from Govt. Sen. Sec. School, Miller Ganj, Ludhiana
Design
| ExperimentalGroup 50 Students | Control Group 50 Students |
| Pre – Test | |
| Mathematical Achievement test (by L.N. Dubey) Attitude towards Mathematics Scale by S.C. Gakhar & Rajni | Mathematical Achievement Test (by L.N. Dubey) Attitude towards Mathematics Scale by S.C. Gakhar & Rajni |
| Treatment | |
| S.T.A.D. Method | Traditional Method |
| Post – test | |
| Mathematical Achievement test (by L.N. Dubey) | Mathematical Achievement Test (by L.N. Dubey) |
| Attitude towards Mathematics Scale by S.C. Gakhar & Rajni | Attitude towards Mathematics Scale by S.C. Gakhar & Rajni |
Analysis and Interpretation-
Table 4.1 Significance of the Difference between Means of Gain Scores of Achievement in Mathematics of Experimental Group and Control Group Secondary School Students (N=50)
S.No. | Group | N | M | S.D | SEM | t-value |
1. | Experimental Group | 25 | 5.56 | 2.33 | 0.47 | 1.36 |
2. | Control Group | 25 | 4.48 | 3.23 | 0.65 |
Table 4.1 revealed that the mean of gain scores of achievement in mathematics of experimental and control group secondary school students as 5.56 and 4.48 respectively and their standard deviation as 2.33 and 3.23 respectively. The t-ratio was calculated as 1.36 which is not significant at .05 level of confidence. This revealed that no significant difference exists between gain scores of achievement in mathematics of experimental and control group secondary school students which show that there exists no significant difference in achievement in mathematics of secondary school students taught through cooperative learning and traditional teaching.
Therefore the hypothesis 1 stating that there exists no significant difference in achievement in mathematics of secondary school students taught through cooperative learning and traditional teaching stands accepted.
Fig. 4.1 Bar Graph showing Difference between Means of Gain Scores of Achievement in Mathematics of Experimental Group and Control Group Secondary School Students (N=50)
Table 4.2 Significance of the Difference between Means of Gain Scores of Attitude towards Mathematics of Experimental Group and Control Group Secondary School Students (N=50)
S.No. | Group | N | M | S.D | SEM | t-value |
1. | Experimental Group | 25 | 13.80 | 23.40 | 4.68 | 1.48 |
2. | Control Group | 25 | 4.24 | 22.18 | 4.44 |
Table 4.2 revealed that the mean of gain scores of attitude towards mathematics of experimental and control group secondary school students as 13.80 and 4.24 respectively and their standard deviation as 23.40 and 22.18 respectively. The t-ratio was calculated as 1.48 which is not significant at .05 level of confidence. This revealed that no significant difference exists between gain scores of attitude towards mathematics of experimental and control group secondary school students which show that there exists no significant difference in attitude towards mathematics of secondary school students taught through cooperative learning and traditional teaching.
Therefore the hypothesis 2 stating that there exists no significant difference in attitude towards mathematics of secondary school students taught through cooperative learning and traditional teaching stands accepted.
Fig. 4.2 Bar Graph showing Difference between Means of Gain Scores of Attitude towards Mathematics of Experimental Group and Control Group Secondary School Students (N=50)
CONCLUSION
As mean of gain scores of achievement in mathematics of experimental and control group secondary school students as 5.56 and 4.48 respectively. The t-ratio was calculated as 1.36 which is not significant at .05 level of confidence. This revealed that no significant difference exists between gain scores of achievement in mathematics of experimental and control group secondary school students which show that there exists no significance difference in achievement in mathematics of secondary school students taught through cooperative learning and traditional teaching.
As mean of gain scores of attitude in mathematics of experimental and control group secondary school students as 13.80 and 4.24 respectively. The t-ratio was calculated as 1.48 which is not significant at .05 level of confidence. This revealed that no significant difference exists between gain scores of attitude in mathematics of experimental and control group secondary school students which show that there exists no significance difference in attitude in mathematics of secondary school students taught through cooperative learning and traditional teaching.
References
Artswork.asu.edu (2005) Definition of Achievement on artswork.asu.edu.
Armstrong D.S. (1997) The effect of Student Team Achievement Division Cooperative learning Technique on upper secondary School Student’s Academic Achievement and Attitude towards Social Studies class. DAI – A 59/02, P- 405, 98
Colorado, C. (2007) Cooperative Learning Strategy. Source. http://www.colorincolorado.org/educators/content/cooperative
Nordy, S. (2004). A Glossary of Gifted Education http://members.aol/com/sevenord/ed/giftedglossary.htm
Scholl, R.W. (2002) attitudes and Attitudes change source. Source: http://www.google.com
Slavin (1994 a). Student Team Achievement Division
