THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING (TEAM ...
Transcript of THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING (TEAM ...
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING (TEAM-
ACCELERATED INSTRUCTION) IN TEACHING PROBABILITY
HII YUNG ING
This project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree of Bachelor of Education (Mathematics) with Honours
Faculty of Cognitive Sciences and Human Development
UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA SARAWAK
2008
The project entitled “The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning (Team-
Accelerated Instruction) in Teaching Probability” was prepared by Hii Yung Ing
and submitted to the Faculty of Cognitive Sciences and Human Development in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Bachelor of Education (Mathematics)
with Honours.
Received for examination by:
------------------------------------
(Associate Professor Dr. Hong Kian Sam)
Date:
---------------------------------
Grade
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The success of the research rests on the efforts and cooperation of many parties.
Hence, I would like to take this opportunity to express my greatest appreciation and
gratitude to them for their continuous comments, supports, suggestions and the
committed advices.
Special thanks to my project supervisor, Associate Professor Dr. Hong Kian Sam, for
his invaluable assistances, suggestions, advices, ideas, and understanding while the
study was carried.
I would also like to thanks all the Form Four students in SMK Agama Sibu for their
cooperation during the data collection processes.
I would also like to extend my appreciation to my beloved parents for their financial
support and encouragement throughout my study at University Malaysia Sarawak.
Lastly, a big thank you to all my coursemates and friends who contributed to the
success of this study.
ii
ABSTRACT
THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING (TEAM-
ACCELERATED INSTRUCTION) IN TEACHING PROBABILITY
This study investigated the effectiveness of cooperative learning (Team-Accelerated
Instruction) in teaching the topic of “Probability” for Form 4 students. This research
was a quantitative research using a quasi-experimental research design. Specifically,
it was a pretest and posttest control group quasi-experimental research design. The
study was carried out within two weeks involving two intact classes. A class was
chosen as a control group (traditional method) while another class was the
experimental group (cooperative learning method). The population of this research
involved all the Form Four students from SMK Agama Sibu with 502 students. The
sample was from 4C and 4B classes. The students in these two classes were of
different races, genders and abilities. A total of 42 students participated in this study
with 20 students in 4C class and 22 students in 4B class. The 4B class had four male
students and 18 female students while 4C class consisted of five male students and 15
female students. The 4C class was randomly assigned as the experimental group
while the 4B class was the control group. The research instruments used in this study
were a pretest and a posttest that measured the students’ achievements in the topic of
“Probability” and a questionnaire to measure the students’ interests and efficacy in
mathematics as well as the perceptions towards the use of cooperative learning. The
data collected were analyzed using two-way ANOVAs, independent t-tests, means,
and frequencies. It was found that there was a significance difference in students’
achievements in the topic “Probability” for those taught using cooperative learning
and traditional method (F=10.455, p<0.005). There was no gender difference in the
achievements for the topic of “Probability”. There was also no interaction effect
between teaching methods (cooperative learning method and traditional method) and
gender on achievement (F=0.083, p=0.775). There was a significance difference in
iii
the students’ interests in mathematics with those using the TAI method having higher
level of interest (t=14.049, p<0.005) compared to the traditional method. For self-
efficacy, there was also a significance difference in students’ efficacy based on the
types of teaching method (cooperative learning method and traditional method) used
with t=9.079 and p<0.005. The TAI group had higher level of efficacy compared to
the traditional method. Students also preferred the TAI teaching method compared to
the traditional instruction (t=10.678, p<0.005). It is recommended that future research
should use a bigger sample and involve more students from different academic levels.
Future research should also include samples from rural and urban area. In addition,
more topics in the mathematics syllabus should be included and duration in
instruction be increased in the future research. Teachers should also be encouraged to
use cooperative learning, including TAI, to create more student-centered learning
environments for the students.
iv
ABSTRAK
KEBERKESANAN KAEDAH PEMBELAJARAN KOPERATIF (TAI)
DALAM PENGAJARAN KEBARANGKALIAN
Kajian ini bertujuan untuk meninjau keberkesanan keadah pembelajaran koperatif
(TAI) dalam pengajaran topik “Kebarangkalian” bagi pelajar Tingkatan Empat.
Pendekatan kuantitatif dengan rekabentuk kajian kuasi eksperimen digunakan. Secara
khususnya, kajian ini berbentuk kuasi eksperimen dengan menggunakan ujian pra dan
pasca dengan kumpulan kawalan. Tempoh kajian adalah selama dua minggu yang
melibatkan dua buah kelas sedia ada. Sebuah kelas telah dipilih sebagai kumpulan
kawalan (kaedah tradisional) manakala sebuah kelas lagi dipilih sebagai kumpulan
eskperimen (kaedah pembelajaran koperatif). Populasi bagi kajian ini terdiri daripada
semua pelajar Tingkatan Empat sekolah SMK Agama Sibu dengan jumlah pelajarnya
seramai 502 orang. Sampel kajian ini ialah kelas 4B and 4C. Pelajar dalam kedua-dua
kelas terdiri daripada pelbagai bangsa, jantina dan keupayaan. Sebanyak 42 orang
pelajar terlibat dalam kajian ini dengan 20 orang pelajar di kelas 4C dan 22 orang
pelajar di kelas 4B. Kelas 4B terdiri daripada empat orang lelaki dan 18orang pelajar
perempuan manakala kelas 4C mempunyai lima orang pelajar lelaki dan 15 orang
pelajar perempuan. Kelas 4C telah dipilih secara rawak sebagai kumpulan eskperimen
manakala kelas 4B dipilih sebagai kumpulan kawalan. Ujian pra dan pasca telah
digunakan sebagai instrumen untuk menilai pencapaian pelajar dalam topik
“Kebarangkalian” dan soal selidik pula untuk menilai minat dan efikasi pelajar
terhadap matematik serta persepsi terhadap penggunaan kaedah pembelajaran
koperatif. Data yang dikumpul telah dianalisis dengan menggunakan ANOVA dua-
hala, ujian t-tidak bersandar, min, dan frekuensi. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan
terdapat perbezaan yang signifikan bagi pencapaian pelajar dalam topik
“Kebarangkalian” selepas menggunakan kaedah pembelajaran koperatif dan kaedah
tradisional (F=10.455, p<0.005). Tiada perbezaan jantina dalam pencapaian topik
v
“Kebarangkalian”. Tidak terdapat kesan interaksi antara kaedah pengajaran (keadah
pembelajaran koperatif dan keadah tradisional) dengan jantina (F=0.083, p=0.775).
Terdapat perbezaan yang signifikan bagi minat pelajar terhadap matematik dengan
kumpulan TAI mempunyai tahap minat yang lebih tinggi (t=14.049, p<0.005)
berbanding dengan kumpulan kaedah tradisional. Bagi efikasi pula, terdapat juga
perbezaan yang signifikan berdasarkan jenis kaedah pembelajaran (pembelajaran
koperatif dan tradisional) yang digunakan dengan t=9.079 dan p<0.005. Kumpulan
yang menggunakan TAI mempunyai tahap efikasi yang lebih tinggi berbanding
dengan kaedah tradisional. Pelajar juga lebih gemar dengan penggunaan kaedah TAI
berbanding dengan kaedah tradisional. Cadangan untuk kajian masa depan adalah
menggunakan bilangan sampel yang lebih banyak dan melibatkan lebih ramai pelajar
daripada tahap akademik yang berbeza-beza. Kajian masa depan juga harus
melibatkan sampel dari kawasan luar bandar dan bandar. Tambahan lagi, bagi kajian
masa depan, perlu melibatkan lebih banyak topik dalam sukatan pelajaran matematik
dan masa pengajaran harus dipanjangkan. Guru juga perlu digalakkan untuk
menggunakan kaedah pembelajaran koperatif, termasuk TAI, untuk menghasilkan
suasana pembelajaran berpusatkan pelajar.
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i
ABSTRACT ii
ABSTRAK iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background of Study 1
1.2 Problem Statement 4
1.3 Research Objectives 6
1.3.1 General Objective 6
1.3.2 Specific Objectives 6
1.4 Research Questions 7
1.5 Research Hypotheses 8
1.6 Research Framework 9
1.7 Significance of the Study 10
1.8 Limitations of the Study 10
1.9 Definition of Terms 10
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction 13
2.1 Cooperative Learning 13
2.2 Characteristics of Cooperative Learning 15
2.3 Teachers’ Roles in Cooperative Learning 17
2.4 Types of Cooperative Learning 19
vii
2.4.1 Team-Accelerated Instruction (TAI) 19
2.4.2 Student Team-Achievement Division (STAD) 20
2.4.3 Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) 20
2.4.4 Jigsaw 21
2.5 Empirical Studies of Cooperative Learning 22
2.5.1 Non-Mathematics Subjects 22
2.5.2 Science Subjects 29
2.5.3 Mathematics 29
2.5.3.1 Cooperative Learning 31
2.5.3.2 Team-Accelerated Instruction (TAI) 35
2.6 Conclusion 37
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHOD
3.0 Introduction 40
3.1 Research Design 40
3.2 Participants 40
3.3 Research Instruments 41
3.3.1 Pretest and Posttest 41
3.3.2 Questionnaire 44
3.4 Procedures in Cooperative Learning 44
3.5 Procedures in Data Collection 45
3.6 Data Analysis 45
3.7 Summary 47
CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS
4.0 Introduction 48
4.1 Students’ Demographics 48
4.2 Reliability Analysis 50
4.3 Findings Based on Research Objectives 51
viii
4.3.1 Effects of Teaching Method and 52
Gender on Students’ Achievements
in the topic of “Probability”
a. To investigate differences in students’ 52
achievements in the topic of “Probability”
between students taught using
cooperative learning and those taught
with traditional method.
b. To determine gender differences 52
in achievement for the topic of “Probability”.
c. To determine whether there was an 52
interaction effect between teaching methods
(cooperative learning and traditional method)
and gender on mathematics achievements.
4.3.2 Students’ Interests in Mathematics 54
4.3.3 Students’ Perceptions of the Teaching method Used 62
4.3.4 Students’ Efficacy in Mathematics 72
4.4 Summary 80
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
5.0 Introduction 81
5.1 Summary of the Research 81
5.2 Summary of the Findings 83
5.3 Discussion of the Findings 83
5.4 Implications of the Study 86
5.5 Suggestions of the Study 87
5.6 Conclusions 88
REFERENCES 89
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1
Types of objective questions for pretest and posttest 42
Table 3.2
Types of subjective questions for pretest and posttest 42
Table 3.3
Test specification table for pretest and posttest 43
Table 3.4
Data analysis 46
Table 4.1
Students’ demographics 49
Table 4.2
Reliability analysis of questionnaire 50
Table 4.3
Reliability analysis of pretest 51
Table 4.4
Reliability analysis of posttest 51
Table 4.5
Results of two-way ANOVA for interaction effect 53
Table 4.6
Descriptive statistics for groups and gender 53
Table 4.7
Frequencies for students’ interests in mathematics 57
Table 4.8
Descriptive statistics for students’ interests in mathematics 61
Table 4.9
Results of independent t-test for students’ interests in mathematics 62
xi
Table 4.10
Frequencies for students’ perceptions of the teaching method used 66
Table 4.11
Descriptive statistics for students’ perceptions 70
of the teaching method used
Table 4.12
Results of independent t-test for students’ perceptions 72
of the teaching method used
Table 4.13
Frequencies for students’ efficacy in mathematics 75
Table 4.14
Descriptive statistics for students’ efficacy in mathematics 79
Table 4.15
Results of independent t-test for students’ efficacy in mathematics 80
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.0 Introduction
This chapter provides the introduction to the study conducted to investigate the
effectiveness of cooperative learning (Team-Accelerated Instruction) in teaching
Form 4 students in the topic of “Probability”. It is divided into eight parts. The
first and second parts are about the background of the study and problem
statement. The third part discusses the research objectives of the study which
consisted of the general objective and specific objectives. The fourth part outlines
the research questions. The fifth part states the research hypotheses. The sixth part
presents the research framework of the study detailing the dependent and
independent variables. The seventh and eighth parts of this chapter discuss the
significance and limitations of the study. The last part provides the definition of
relevant terms in the study.
1.1 Background of Study
In the present era dominated by mathematics, science, and technology, it is
essential for mathematics and science teachers to equip themselves with the
knowledge and skills required to teach both mathematics and science
meaningfully to the students. The quality of education that teachers provide to the
2
students is highly dependent upon what teachers do in the classroom (Furner &
Kumar, 2007). In promoting good practice of mathematics and sciences teaching,
the teachers need to innovate their teaching and learning processes to meet the
students’ academic needs through the use of various teaching strategies, teaching
materials, and evaluation techniques (Marsigit, 2007). Thus, in preparing the
students of today to become successful individuals of tomorrow, science and
mathematics teachers need to ensure that their teaching is effective and
meaningful (Furner & Kumar, 2007).
Traditional teaching and cooperative learning strategies have been studied for
many years (Messier, 2003, cited in Messier, 2005). Traditional teaching is a
teacher-centered approach which places emphasis on the teacher and deep
learning through memorization. It is characterized by directed demonstrations and
activities to verify previously introduced concepts (Effandi Zakaria & Zanaton
Iksan, 2007). In the education context, teacher is the sender or the source, his or
her educational material is the information or message, and the student is the
receiver of the information (Tse & Mai, 2004). Teachers are the bosses, leaders,
creators, while students are the employees, followers, and users (Panitz, 1999).
The most common type of delivery medium in the traditional instruction is via the
“chalk-and talk” method by the teacher (Tse & Mai, 2004).
Traditional methods of teaching have come under increasing attack for decades
(Morgan, 1999). Critics of direct instruction believed that traditional mathematics
instruction often teaches students on unintended lesson – that they cannot
“understand mathematics” (Woolfolk, 2004, p. 462). Others asserted that the
traditional “stand and deliver” style of teaching no longer does the job, that it fails
to develop students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and that it
suppresses natural creativity and curiosity (Morgan, 1999).
Many recent studies demonstrated that cooperative learning provides a variety of
educational advantages over more traditional instructional models (Haller,
3
Gallagher, Weldon, & Felder, 2000). Hence, over the past decade, cooperative
learning has emerged as the leading new approach to classroom instruction (Stahl,
1994). Cooperative learning has been recommended as effective for most school
subjects across various groups of students measured on several cognitive and
affective outcomes (Robinson, 1991). It provides the setting, context, and
environment in which assessment becomes parts of the instructional process and
students learn as much from assessing the qualities of their own and their
classmates’ works as they do from participating in the instructional activities
(Johnson & Johnson, 1999a). Effective cooperative teaching strategies are
somewhat different from traditional teaching strategies because they require
increasing accountability between individuals (Messier, 2005). Students work
together to accomplish shared goals and are not finished with the works until all
members of the group have acquired the learning objectives (Kim, Cohen,
Booske, & Derry, 1998). The success of one student depends upon group efforts
and also enables other group members to be successful (Saunders & Batson,
1999).
Today there is an added emphasis on improving goals and outcomes in education
(Messier, 2005). Students not only need knowledge but also communication skills
and creative and critical thinking skills in the years ahead (Effandi Zakaria &
Zanaton Iksan, 2007). The Ministry of Education (2003) states that in
mathematics, the curriculum provides students with the mathematical knowledge
and skills and develops problem solving and decision making skills for everyday
use. Thus, effective mathematics instruction should involve active students’
participation (Panitz, 2000). Hedeen (2003) stated that students learn best when
they are actively involved in the learning process.
Hence, the mathematics teachers are expected to teach mathematics in a way that
enables the students not only to learn the mathematical concepts but also acquire
the process skills as well as the problem solving skills. It is the responsibilities of
teachers to be aware of the various learning preferences that students bring to the
4
classroom and try to take full advantages of them during the daily teaching and
learning processes (Vaughan, 2002). Therefore, it is hoped that through
cooperative learning, students’ learning can be deepened, enjoy attending class,
and will come to respect and value the contributions of their fellow classmates
(Millis, 2002). Thus, in teaching mathematics, efforts should be taken to move the
teaching of mathematics lessons from a traditional approach to more students-
centered approaches.
1.2 Problem Statement
Mullis ( 2004, cited in Effandi Zakaria & Zanaton Iksan, 2007, p.36 ) stated that
In mathematics, 64% of teachers reported that they use textbook
as primary basis of their lessons. The three most predominant
activities in mathematics classroom were teacher lectures,
teacher-guided students practices and students working on
problems on their own, accounting for 58% of class time. Other
activities were reviewing homework, re-teaching and clarifying
content, taking tests and quizzes and participating in classroom
management tasks that are not related to the lesson content.
In Malaysia, the issue of shortcomings in science and mathematics education has
been hotly debated. Effandi Zakaria and Zanaton Iksan (2007) have identified
pedagogical limitations as one of the major shortcomings in our secondary
education. One of them is teacher-centered instruction. In a teacher-centered
instruction, students become passive recipients of knowledge and resort to rote
learning. The “what” and “how” of learning are preplanned by the teacher (Panitz,
1999). Students seldom ask questions or exchange thoughts with each other in the
class. Hence, in a traditional classroom, teacher directs the learning process,
guiding the students through the various stages of a task by questioning and
5
evaluating contributions at every stage in the process (Gumperaz, Cook-
Gumperaz, & Szymanski, 1999).
In mathematics lessons, the use of traditional method has been criticized as it is
said that this instruction is not for conceptual understanding but rather for
memorizing and recalling of facts. It is predominately teacher-directed and the
students work alone on the assigned task (Hoxworth, 1999). Students in a
traditional teacher-centered education lack conceptual understanding and are
unable to perform successfully in a task that requires deep understanding of
concepts. In cooperative learning method on the other hand, students are free to
take their own time to work out their learning strategies and rely on peer group
processes, both to establish collaboration and to guide their own learning
(Gumperaz et al., 1999). Kim et al. (1998) stated that cooperative learning is an
effective way to help students recall appropriate schemas, because one can
provide cues to others unless all students in a group do not have appropriate
schemas.
Townsend and Wilton (2003) suggested that with certain instructional strategies,
adults may be able to increase their perceptions of personal ability to learn and
perform tasks in mathematics, and to reduce their feelings of tension associated
with these tasks. Hence, cooperative learning is a shift in educational paradigm
from a teacher-centered approach to a student-centered approach. Cooperative
learning has been found to be a successful teaching strategy at all levels, from pre-
school to post secondary (Dotson, 2001). It allows students to explore and
discover mathematical concepts, while at the same time it offers instructors an
avenue to introduce it in a variety of ways (Kasturiarachi, 2004). The revised
curriculum of the primary and secondary schools emphasized the use of
cooperative learning as an alternative to traditional method of teaching
(Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2001, cited in Effandi Zakaria & Zanaton
Iksan, 2007). Small-group learning, in which students discuss ideas and solve
6
problems, is consistently described as one strategy to meet the challenge of reform
in mathematics education (Whicker, Bol, & Nunnery, 1997).
Cooperative learning prepares students for today's society (Blosser, 1992). Its
activities promote the development of interpersonal skills and communication
skills through face-to-face interactions (Towns, 1998). It allows students to create
an environment where they actively engage in the material by sharing insights and
ideas, providing feedback, and teaching each other (Towns, 1998). Teachers’
skills are frequently implicated in quality of instruction and use of effective
approaches (Lopata, Miller, & Miller, 2003). Hence, teachers are encouraged to
introduce active-learning activities where students are able to construct knowledge
(Garfield, 1993). The role of the instructor should change from a deliverer-of-
information to a facilitator of learning (Millis, 2002).
Thus, it is not surprising that recent calls have been made for greater use of
cooperative learning in mathematics education (Blum-Anderson, 1992). In
addition, Clark (2000) stated that Team-Accelerated Instruction (TAI), a
cooperative learning strategy could be appropriate for use in heterogeneous
mathematics classes. Thus, this research aimed to investigate the effectiveness of
cooperative learning (TAI) in teaching Form 4 students on the topic of
“Probability”. It was also to determine the students’ achievements, interests,
perceptions, and efficacy towards the use of this teaching method.
1.3 Research Objectives
1.3.1 General Objective
The objective of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of cooperative
learning in teaching the topic of “Probability” for Form 4 students.
7
1.3.2 Specific Objectives
Specifically the study looked at the following research objectives:
1. a. To investigate differences in students’ achievements in the topic of
“Probability” between students taught using cooperative learning and
those taught with traditional method.
b. To determine gender differences in achievement for the topic of
“Probability”.
c. To determine whether there was an interaction effect between teaching
methods (cooperative learning and traditional method) and gender on
mathematics achievements.
2. To determine differences in students’ interests in the subject for the two
teaching methods.
3. To investigate differences in students’ perceptions on the teaching method
(cooperative learning and traditional method) used for teaching the topic
of “Probability”.
4. To determine students’ efficacy in the subject for the two teaching
methods.
1.4 Research Questions
1. a. Were there any differences in students’ achievements in the topic of
“Probability” between students taught using cooperative learning and
those taught with traditional method?
8
b. Were there any gender differences in achievement for the topic of
“Probability”?
c. Was there any interaction effect between teaching methods
(cooperative learning and traditional method) and gender on
mathematics achievements?
2. Were there any differences in students’ interests in the subject for the two
teaching methods?
3. Were there any differences in students’ perceptions on the teaching
method (cooperative learning and traditional method) used for teaching the
topic of “Probability”?
4. Were there any differences in students’ efficacy in subject for the two
teaching methods?
1.5 Research Hypotheses
The null hypotheses for this study were:
H01a: There were no significance differences in students’ achievements in the
topic of “Probability” for students taught using cooperative learning and
those taught with the traditional method.
H01b: There were no gender differences in the achievement for the topic of
“Probability”.
9
H01c: There was no interaction effect between teaching methods (cooperative
learning and traditional method) and gender on mathematics
achievements.
H02: There were no significance differences in students’ interests in the subject
for those taught using cooperative learning and traditional teaching
method.
H03: There were no significance differences in students’ perceptions on the two
teaching methods.
H04: There were no significance differences in students’ efficacy in the subject
for those taught using cooperative learning and traditional teaching.
1.6 Research Framework
Figure 1.1 shows the research framework of the study.
Figure 1.1 Research framework
Independent Variable
1. Teaching method
a) Cooperative
learning
b) Traditional method
2. Gender
Dependent Variable
1. Achievement in the
topic “Probability”
2. Interest in the subject.
3. Perceptions on the
teaching method.
4. Efficacy in the
subject.
10
1.7 Significance of the Study
The findings of this study could be a source to motivate school mathematics
teachers to use Team Accelerated Instruction (TAI) and cooperative learning as
one of their teaching strategies in the mathematics classroom. It is hoped that this
study could encourage the mathematics teacher to shift their way of teaching from
a teacher-centered approach to more students-centered approaches.
1.8 Limitations of the Study
The study has some limitations. For instance, this study was carried out in only
one secondary school in Sibu. The participants were 42 Form 4 students from the
population of all Form 4 students in SMK Agama Sibu. Thus, the sample
represented only a small portion of the population. The 42 students were from two
intact classes chosen from three Form 4 classes. In addition, the results obtained
might not be representative of students of other levels of students such as lower
secondary students and Form 6 students. Furthermore, the study was conducted
only in a short time frame of two weeks or 10 periods of mathematics lessons.
1.9 Definition of Terms
Below are the operational definition of some of the important terms that used in
the study.
Effectiveness/Achievement
In this study, the term “effectiveness/achievement” referred to the students’ scores
in the pretest and posttest for the topic of “Probability”.