JOURNAL OF RESEARCH IN SCIENCE TEACHING VOL. 28, NO. 2, PP. 141-146 (1991)

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND GROUP EDUCATIONAL MODULES: EFFECTS ON COGNITIVE ACHIEVEMENT OF HIGH

SCHOOL BIOLOGY STUDENTS

SCOTT B. WATSON

Department of Science Education, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina 2 7858

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of cooperative learning and Group Educational Modules (GEM) on the achievement of high school biology students. GEM materials are self-instructional packets designed for use with groups of biology students. Cooperative learning is a classroom learning environment in which students work in small, mixed-ability groups toward a common goal. A 2 X 2 factorial design was used in this study. The independent variables considered included (1) participation of students in the GEM project, and (2 ) use of cooperative learning techniques including heterogeneous grouping and group incentives. The dependent variables for all treatment groups were scores on the instrument developed for this study. A total of 11 teachers with 36 classes and 715 students were included in this study. All teachers involved covered the same general subject matter during the study period. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used as the data analysis procedure. Significant differences were found in the achievement of students using GEM materials and those using traditional instructional approaches. The use of cooperative learning also produced significant differences when compared to traditional classroom structures.

Cooperative learning may be defined as a classroom learning environment in which students work together in small, mixed-ability groups on academic tasks. It has been an area of interest to researchers over the last 20 years. Cooperative learning is viewed as a means for improving student achievement and cognitive skills (Brophy, 1986; Parker, 1985; Slavin, 1984). Typically, students work in small, heterogeneous groups during learning activities. Stcdents serve as the major learning resource for each other, sharing and gathering information as needed. The teacher acts as a consultant and activity coordinator. According to Slavin (1984), the reason for the success of cooperative learning as an instructional method is that by rewarding groups as well as individuals, peer norms come to favor rather than oppose achievement. The use of cooperative tasks (in which students work together toward a common goal) and cooperative incentives (in which students are evaluated or rewarded as a group) appears necessary to maximize results (Slavin, 1984). Evidence suggests that heterogeneous grouping, in which students are mixed within groups according to ability, sex, and ethnic background is also an

0 1991 by the National Association for Research in Science Teaching Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. CCC OO22-4308/9 1/020141-06$O4.OO

142 WATSON

important factor in bringing out the best in students (Slavin, 1986; Johnson & Johnson, 1987).

Results from a meta-analysis of cooperative learning research indicate that cooperative learning methods have been successful in promoting increased achievement (Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson & Skon, 1981). Despite results from a large number of studies, controversy still exists about the effects of cooperative learning methods.

The Group Educational Modules (GEM) program based at the University of Florida and directed by Parker Small, Jr., uses a team-learning approach similar to Elliot Aronson’s original Jigsaw Classroom. Students in groups of three or four are assigned roles and scenarios which they present to the members of their group. They share knowledge, ask and answer questions, and investigate problems. Each student has a turn at being the group leader. The teacher acts as a resource for guidance and informat- ion. Students eventually develop a group project or complete a research report, and they may also be evaluated individually.

Purpose of Study

The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of the Group Educational Modules and cooperative learning techniques on the achievement of high school biology students in terms of the following research hypotheses:

1. Achievement of students who participate in the Group Educational Modules project as a supplement to traditional instructional approaches will be significantly higher than achievement of students in classes where traditional instructional approaches and traditional supplements are utilized. Achievement of students in classes where cooperative learning techniques of heterogeneous grouping and group incentives are used will be significantly higher than achievement of students in classes where cooperative learning techniques are not used. Achievement of students who participate in the Group Educational Modules project combined with cooperative learning techniques will be significantly higher than achievement of students in the following treatment groups: (a) students who participate in the Group Educational Modules project alone; (b) students in cooperative learning groups alone; and ( c ) students who participate in traditional classroom settings.

2.

3.

Sample

A total of 11 volunteer biology teachers with 36 classes and 715 students were involved in this study. Teachers were assigned to treatment groups according to the following criteria: school location, highest degree held, years of teaching experience, and level of classes taught. The age range for students taking part in the study was 14-17 years. Class sizes ranged from 16 to 31, with both small and large classes included in all treatment groups. Students from high schools in several western Florida school districts were included in the study group. The districts include urban centers as well as rural area.

Data collection for this study took place during May of 1988. The treatment was spread over a three-week period. Pretests were given the day before the treatment began, and posttests were given the day after the treatment ended. Tests for all treatment groups were given during approximately the same time frame.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING 143

No Cooperative Learning

Design and Procedures

A 2 X 2 factorial design was used in this study. The effect of each independent variable was considered alone and in interaction with the other independent variable. The independent variables for this study included (1) participation of students in the GEM project, and (2) use of cooperative learning techniques including heterogeneous grouping and group incentives. In Figure 1, treatments are shown in the factorial design.

The first treatment group consisted of nine classes of students who participated in the GEM program and used cooperative learning techniques. The second group, also consisting of nine classes of students, took part in the GEM program, but they did not use cooperative learning techniques. The third treatment group consisted of eight classes of students, and they used traditional supplemental materials along with cooperative learning techniques. The fourth group, made up of ten classes of students, used traditional supplemental materials and did not use cooperative learning techniques. Dependent variables for all groups were scores on the achievement test developed for this study.

Teachers in treatment groups using GEM materials were given a set of instructions specific to the use of those materials. Teachers who used cooperative leaning techniques were given a set of instructions based on the steps suggested by Johnson and Johnson (1987) for organizing cooperative learning activities. They were instructed to heter- ogeneously group their students using a procedure developed by Slavin (1983). An inspection of California Achievement Test scores of a sample class of heterogeneously grouped students indicated that the procedure was effective, and that the groups were composed of students of greatly varying abilities. Teachers using traditional supplemental materials continued with their normal class activities. All teachers were given a set of general instructions specific to their treatment group. The same subject matter was covered by all groups during the treatment condition.

Trciitrncrrt 1 Treatment 3

(9 classes) (8 classes)

Treatment 2 Treatment 4

( 9 classes) (10 c las ses ) I

Instrumentation

A search of the traditional sources and of related literature failed to reveal a test suitable for measuring achievement in this study. For this reason, a 50-item multiple- choice instrument was constructed and validated for this purpose. Content included in this instrument was based on biological topics that are covered in both traditional

Cooperative Learning

144 WATSON

biology curricula and in the GEM units. Objectives to be tested were indexed to the science skills from the ~ ~ n ~ r n u r n Student Performance Standards for Florida Schools to insure that test items represented topics that are included in the biology curricula. Reliability of the final form of the instrument was estimated to be 0.90 using Kuder- Richardson's formula 20 to determine internal consistency.

Results

The effectiveness of the following treatments was to be determined: (1) Group Educational Modules (GEM) learning materials when used as a supplement to traditional biology instruction; (2) cooperative learning techniques when used in biology classrooms; and (3) GEM learning materials when used in combination with cooperative learning techniques. A total of 11 biology teachers with 36 classes and 829 students were included. Pretest and posttest data were gathered using the instrument developed for this study, a 50-item multiple-choice test. Scores of 114 students who were not present for both the pretest and posttest were eliminated, leaving a total of 715 students. Individual class means for pretests and posttests were calculated for the remaining scores. These data were analyzed using an analysis of co-variance.

The bases for analysis of data were individual class means for pretests and posttests. Group means for pretests and posttests, as well as adjusted group means for the posttest, are shown in Table I . Results of the ANCOVA are shown in Table 11.

In order to test the first hypothesis, comparisons were made between treatment groups which used Group Educational Modules materials (groups 1 and 2) and groups which did not use the materials (groups 3 and 4). Means were found to be significantly different ( F = 9.10, p < 0.005) indicating the value of participation in the GEM program. The first research hypothesis was accepted.

In order to test hypothesis two, comparisons were made between treatment groups which used cooperative learning techniques (groups 1 and 3) and groups which did not (groups 2 and 4). The use of cooperative learning techniques were found to produce a significant difference in achievement at the 0.05 level (F = 4.40, p < 0.044). The second research hypothesis was accepted.

In determining the interaction effect, the analysis of covariance procedure failed to indicate any significant interaction effect between GEM and cooperative learning techniques (F = 0.41, p < 0.767). The third research hypothesis was not accepted.

TABLE I Pretest and Posttest Means and Adjusted Means for Treatment Groups

~~ ~

Croup Pretest Posttest Adjusted Posttest

1 (GEM/coop) 3 2 . 1 36.1 3 4 . 4

2 (CE.hl/tratl) 33.1 '35.7 3 2 . 9

3 ('CRAD/coop) 2 6 . 1 2 7 . 2 31.6

4 (TRAD/trad) 29.9 29 .8 30.3

COOPERATIVE LEARNING 145

TABLE Table 2 Analysis of Covariance Summary

Stunmary - d f Mean Squarc? F - V d l u e lE GEM 1 41.49 0.10 0.005

cow 1 20.08 4 .40 0 .044

CEM"CO0P 1 0.41 0.09 0.767

COVARIATE 1 906.87 198.86 0.0001

ERROR 31 4 .56

TOTAL 35

Discussion

Results of this study indicate that use of Group Educational Modules (GEM) can help improve achievement of high school biology students, and that the learning approach utilized with these materials (in which each student in a group participates and plays an important role) appears to be effective. Students seem to genuinely enjoy using these materials. They are challenged by the situations suggested in the packets, and they enjoy working together. The approach used in creating and applying the GEM materials could be applied to other disciplines in science, as well as other subject areas.

The use of cooperative learning techniques, which are defined for this study to include heterogeneous grouping and cooperating task structures, did produce significant differences when compared to traditional classroom structures. This supports most of the research evidence on the subject of cooperative learning (Slavin, 1984; Johnson & Johnson, 1987; Johnson, Marayama, Johnson, Nelson & Skon, 1981).

Simple grouping, whether heterogeneous or not, may be one reason for the success of the GEM materials and cooperative learning in terms of the research hypotheses. The implication is that there is an additive effect in using the three main components of cooperative learning. They are (1) grouping of students, (2) group task and incentive structures, and (3) heterogeneous arrangement of students within groups. The possi- bility that all of these components are necessary to achieve maximum advances is supported by Slavin (1984) and others.

Another reason for the effectiveness of the GEM materials is that they provide a task structure to the group learning situation. The students understand what they are supposed to accomplish, and find that it is necessary and advantageous to work together as a group. The importance of a clear goal is supported by Deutsch (1965), Slavin (1987) and others. The preponderance of research evidence indicates that the use of heterogeneous grouping and group rewards will increase the effectiveness of any group learning situation, whether established instructional materials are used or not. It is important, however, for the teachers and students to clearly understand the task and incentive structure involved (Johnson & Johnson, 1987). Teachers at all grade levels need to be extensively trained in the use of cooperative learning methods and techniques,

146 WATSON

and need to experience learning on a personal basis using these approaches. This can be accomplished through regional and local in-service workshops. As more teachers become aware of the advantages of using these methods, student achievement as well as enjoyment of class activities will increase.

References

Brophy, J. (1986). Teacher effects research and teacher quality. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA, April, 1986.

Deutsch, M. & Krauss, R. (1965). Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Basic Books.

Johnson, D. & Johnson, R. (1987). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperation, Competition and Individualization, 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D. & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualist goal structures on achievement: a meta- analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89( l), 47-62.

Parker, R. (1985). Small-group cooperative learning. The Education Digest, 51,

Slavin, R . (1983). Cooperative Learning. New York: Longman. Slavin, R. (1984). Students motivating students to excel: cooperative incentives,

cooperative tasks, and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 85( I),

Slavin, R. (1986). Using Student Team Learning, 3rd ed. Baltimore, MD: Johns

Slavin, R. (1987). Cooperative learning and the cooperative school. Educarional

44-46.

53-63.

Hopkins University Press.

Leadership, 45(3), 7-13.

Manuscript accepted November 27, 1989.