Excellence in Research and Innovation for Humanity

International Science Index


Select areas to restrict search in scientific publication database:
10006955
The Effect of Cooperative Learning on Academic Achievement of Grade Nine Students in Mathematics: The Case of Mettu Secondary and Preparatory School
Abstract:
The aim of this study was to examine the effect of cooperative learning method on student’s academic achievement and on the achievement level over a usual method in teaching different topics of mathematics. The study also examines the perceptions of students towards cooperative learning. Cooperative learning is the instructional strategy in which pairs or small groups of students with different levels of ability work together to accomplish a shared goal. The aim of this cooperation is for students to maximize their own and each other learning, with members striving for joint benefit. The teacher’s role changes from wise on the wise to guide on the side. Cooperative learning due to its influential aspects is the most prevalent teaching-learning technique in the modern world. Therefore the study was conducted in order to examine the effect of cooperative learning on the academic achievement of grade 9 students in Mathematics in case of Mettu secondary school. Two sample sections are randomly selected by which one section served randomly as an experimental and the other as a comparison group. Data gathering instruments are achievement tests and questionnaires. A treatment of STAD method of cooperative learning was provided to the experimental group while the usual method is used in the comparison group. The experiment lasted for one semester. To determine the effect of cooperative learning on the student’s academic achievement, the significance of difference between the scores of groups at 0.05 levels was tested by applying t test. The effect size was calculated to see the strength of the treatment. The student’s perceptions about the method were tested by percentiles of the questionnaires. During data analysis, each group was divided into high and low achievers on basis of their previous Mathematics result. Data analysis revealed that both the experimental and comparison groups were almost equal in Mathematics at the beginning of the experiment. The experimental group out scored significantly than comparison group on posttest. Additionally, the comparison of mean posttest scores of high achievers indicates significant difference between the two groups. The same is true for low achiever students of both groups on posttest. Hence, the result of the study indicates the effectiveness of the method for Mathematics topics as compared to usual method of teaching.

References:

[1] Alexenberg, M., Benjamin, M., 2004. Creating public art through intergenerational collaboration: Art Education. 57(5), 13-18.
[2] Hompton, D.R., Grudnitski, G., 1996. Does cooperative learning mean equal learning? Journal of Education for Business. 7(5).
[3] 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.
[4] Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., 1993. Implementing cooperative learning: Education Digest, 58 (8), 62 - 66.
[5] Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.,T., 1983. Social interdependence and perceived academic and persona1 support in the classroom: Journal of Social Psychology, 120, 77-82.
[6] Johnson, D., W., Johnson, R., Smith, K., A., 1991. Active Learning: Cooperation in the Classroom. Edina, Minn: Interaction Book Co: 3:3.
[7] Johnson, D.W., Johnson, T., 1999. Making Cooperative Learning Work: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 67-73, accessed July 16, 2016, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1477225
[8] Johnson, W., D., Johnson, R. T., 1991. Learning together and Alone: Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning, Allyn and Bacon, USA.pp.69-89? 183-217.
[9] Johnson, W., D., Johnson, R., T., 1991. Learning mathematics and Cooperative Learning lesson plans for teachers: Interaction Book company, Cornelia Drive, Edine, Minnesta, USA.pp.1-20.
[10] Jonhson, D., W., Johnson, R. T., Stanne, M. B., 2000. Cooperative Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis,
[on-line]. The Cooperative Learning Center at the University of Minnesota, accessed August 27 , 2016, http://cooperative learningcrc.com/pages/cooperative learning=methods.html.
[11] Sharan, S., 1980. Cooperative learning in small groups: recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes and ethnic relations: Review of Educational Research.
[12] Sherman, L. W., Thomas, M., 1989. A comparative study of cooperative and competitive achievement in two secondary biology classrooms: the group investigation model versus an individually competitive goal structure: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 55-64.
[13] Slavin, R., E., 1980. Cooperative learning: Review of Educational Research, 50 (2), 315-342.
[14] Slavin, R., E., 1991. Synthesis of research on cooperative learning: Educational leardership , 48, 71-82.
[15] Slavin, R., E., 1996. Research on Cooperative Learning and Achievement: What we know, what we need to know: Contemporary Educational Psychology, 2 (1), 43-69.
[16] Slavin, R.,E., 1986. Learning together: American Educator, 10, 6-13.
[17] Whicker, K., M., Bol, L., Nunnery, J., A., 1997. Cooperative Learning in the secondary Mathematics Classroom: Journal of Educational Research, 91 (1), 42-48.
Vol:11 No:10 2017Vol:11 No:09 2017Vol:11 No:08 2017Vol:11 No:07 2017Vol:11 No:06 2017Vol:11 No:05 2017Vol:11 No:04 2017Vol:11 No:03 2017Vol:11 No:02 2017Vol:11 No:01 2017
Vol:10 No:12 2016Vol:10 No:11 2016Vol:10 No:10 2016Vol:10 No:09 2016Vol:10 No:08 2016Vol:10 No:07 2016Vol:10 No:06 2016Vol:10 No:05 2016Vol:10 No:04 2016Vol:10 No:03 2016Vol:10 No:02 2016Vol:10 No:01 2016
Vol:9 No:12 2015Vol:9 No:11 2015Vol:9 No:10 2015Vol:9 No:09 2015Vol:9 No:08 2015Vol:9 No:07 2015Vol:9 No:06 2015Vol:9 No:05 2015Vol:9 No:04 2015Vol:9 No:03 2015Vol:9 No:02 2015Vol:9 No:01 2015
Vol:8 No:12 2014Vol:8 No:11 2014Vol:8 No:10 2014Vol:8 No:09 2014Vol:8 No:08 2014Vol:8 No:07 2014Vol:8 No:06 2014Vol:8 No:05 2014Vol:8 No:04 2014Vol:8 No:03 2014Vol:8 No:02 2014Vol:8 No:01 2014
Vol:7 No:12 2013Vol:7 No:11 2013Vol:7 No:10 2013Vol:7 No:09 2013Vol:7 No:08 2013Vol:7 No:07 2013Vol:7 No:06 2013Vol:7 No:05 2013Vol:7 No:04 2013Vol:7 No:03 2013Vol:7 No:02 2013Vol:7 No:01 2013
Vol:6 No:12 2012Vol:6 No:11 2012Vol:6 No:10 2012Vol:6 No:09 2012Vol:6 No:08 2012Vol:6 No:07 2012Vol:6 No:06 2012Vol:6 No:05 2012Vol:6 No:04 2012Vol:6 No:03 2012Vol:6 No:02 2012Vol:6 No:01 2012
Vol:5 No:12 2011Vol:5 No:11 2011Vol:5 No:10 2011Vol:5 No:09 2011Vol:5 No:08 2011Vol:5 No:07 2011Vol:5 No:06 2011Vol:5 No:05 2011Vol:5 No:04 2011Vol:5 No:03 2011Vol:5 No:02 2011Vol:5 No:01 2011
Vol:4 No:12 2010Vol:4 No:11 2010Vol:4 No:10 2010Vol:4 No:09 2010Vol:4 No:08 2010Vol:4 No:07 2010Vol:4 No:06 2010Vol:4 No:05 2010Vol:4 No:04 2010Vol:4 No:03 2010Vol:4 No:02 2010Vol:4 No:01 2010
Vol:3 No:12 2009Vol:3 No:11 2009Vol:3 No:10 2009Vol:3 No:09 2009Vol:3 No:08 2009Vol:3 No:07 2009Vol:3 No:06 2009Vol:3 No:05 2009Vol:3 No:04 2009Vol:3 No:03 2009Vol:3 No:02 2009Vol:3 No:01 2009
Vol:2 No:12 2008Vol:2 No:11 2008Vol:2 No:10 2008Vol:2 No:09 2008Vol:2 No:08 2008Vol:2 No:07 2008Vol:2 No:06 2008Vol:2 No:05 2008Vol:2 No:04 2008Vol:2 No:03 2008Vol:2 No:02 2008Vol:2 No:01 2008
Vol:1 No:12 2007Vol:1 No:11 2007Vol:1 No:10 2007Vol:1 No:09 2007Vol:1 No:08 2007Vol:1 No:07 2007Vol:1 No:06 2007Vol:1 No:05 2007Vol:1 No:04 2007Vol:1 No:03 2007Vol:1 No:02 2007Vol:1 No:01 2007