cooperative learning & the introverted student -- graduate thesis

The Effects of Cooperative Learning Activities

On the Introverted Student

By

Carl Mahlmann

A Research Project

Submitted to the College of Education

Graduate Programs

University of Texas Arlington

In partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of

Master of Education

2014

MAJOR: Curriculum and Instruction

Mathematics Education

APPROVED BY:

Advisor Date

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND THE INTROVERTED STUDENT

The Effects of Cooperative Learning Activities on the Introverted Student

By Carl Mahlmann

University of Texas at Arlington

July 27, 2014

Author Note

I have read and understand the UTA Academic Honesty clause as follows. “Academic

dishonesty is a completely unacceptable mode of conduct and will not be tolerated in any form at

The University of Texas at Arlington. All persons involved in academic dishonesty will be

disciplined in accordance with University regulations and procedures. Discipline may include

suspension or expulsion from the University. ‘Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited

to, cheating, plagiarism, collusion, the submission for credit of any work or materials that are

attributable in whole or in part to another person, taking an examination for another person, any

act designed to give unfair advantage to a student or the attempt to commit such acts.’ (Regents’

Rules and Regulations, Part One, Chapter VI, Section 3, Subsection 3.2., Subdivision 3.22).”

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND THE INTROVERTED STUDENT i

Abstract

Cooperative learning is a considered a “best practice” in modern pedagogy, and is a

commonly-used instructional method in today’s classrooms. However, a recent book by Susan

Cain, Quiet, The Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking, suggests that the

predominant use of group activities might not be a “best fit” for introverts. Introverts seem to

have a learning style that differs from that of extraverts, and favor use of the intelligence

“Intrapersonal” over that of “Interpersonal” – as defined by Howard Gardner’s multiple

intelligences theory – to help them learn. In other words, they tend to prefer more independent

work, and shy away from group activities.

To seek an answer to this problem, this study was conducted. Participants’ personality

types and preferred learning styles were identified. Treatment and control groups were

established. Lessons were taught to the treatment group using both cooperative and independent

methods. Lessons for the control group were strictly limited to the use of cooperative methods.

Following each lesson unit, assessments on mathematics content knowledge and attitude surveys

were administered. Data from these were collected and evaluated using quantitative methods.

Findings show that there was a statistically significant preference among the introverts

for independent learning and among the extraverts for cooperative tasks. Students tended to score

higher on assessments, and expressed greater satisfaction on the attitude surveys, following

lessons taught catering to their preferred learning styles.

The implication is that educators should identify the personality types within their

classrooms and then re-think the manner and extent to which they utilize cooperative tasks in

their classrooms in order to meet the individual needs of all their students, including introverts.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND THE INTROVERTED STUDENT ii

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank the following people for helping make this project a reality:

- The administration, faculty and staff of Lake Cormorant High School, without whose

support, encouragement and camaraderie I would have had a difficult time not only completing

this paper, but also completing my first year of teaching high school Geometry.

- My students: for their participation, and who taught me more about teaching, I’m sure,

than any of my teachers ever did.

- My wife, Karen, for everything – because that’s what she’s given me.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND THE INTROVERTED STUDENT iii

Table of Contents

Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... i

Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ ii

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... iii

Table of Tables ................................................................................................................................v

Table of Figures ............................................................................................................................ vi

Chapter 1: Introduction

Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 1

Significance of the Study .................................................................................................... 2

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Review of the Literature ..................................................................................................... 3

Cooperative Learning: What is it? ............................................................. 3

Cooperative Learning: To what extent

is it being used in classrooms? ....................................................... 3

Cooperative Learning: What have been the overall results

of this method? ............................................................................... 4

Cooperative Learning: What have been the results

of this method on different classifications of students? ................. 4

Introverts and Extraverts: Who are they? .................................................. 5

Introverts / Intrapersonal Learners:

What are their learning styles/preferences? ................................... 7

What have been the results of cooperative learning

with introverts / intrapersonal learners? ......................................... 9

Summary and Conclusion of the Literature ...................................................................... 11

Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 12

Specific Research Questions ..............................................................................................12

Hypothesis..........................................................................................................................12

Terminology .......................................................................................................................13

Chapter 3: Methods

Setting ...............................................................................................................................14

Participants. ........................................................................................................................14

Data Collection Techniques .............................................................................................. 15

Procedures of the Study ....................................................................................................18

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND THE INTROVERTED STUDENT iv

Data Analysis ....................................................................................................................20

Chapter 4 Results

Research Question 1 ......................................................................................................... 23




Chapter 5: Discussion

Interpretation of Results .....................................................................................................33

Limitations of the Study.....................................................................................................33

Implications of Research................................................................................................... 34

Recommendations for Future Research .............................................................................36

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 37

References ..................................................................................................................................... 38

Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 43

Sample A / Part 1: Student personality preferences survey using Jung Typology Test ....43

Sample A / Part 2: Jung Typology Test / Self-Awareness and Personal Growth ..............44

Sample B: Student learning style assessment ................................................................... 45

Biographical Sketch ...................................................................................................................... 47

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND THE INTROVERTED STUDENT v

Table of Tables

Table 1: Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants .................................................... 15

Table 2: Sub-Group Classification of Study Participants ............................................................ 19

Table 3: Personality Preferences of Study Participants: ...............................................................24

Table 4: Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test Results of

Student Performances on Lesson Unit Assessments: ...................................................27

Table 5: Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test Results of

Student Responses on Lesson Unit Surveys ................................................................. 31

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND THE INTROVERTED STUDENT vi

Table of Figures

Figure 1: Dual Percentage Scale Measuring a Person’s Preferences

Toward the Attitudes of Extraversion or Introversion ............................................... 16

Figure 2: Comparison of Sub-Groups’ Performances on Unit Assessments ............................... 25

Figure 3: Comparison of Sub-Groups’ Responses to Attitude Surveys

Following Lesson Units: ...............................................................................................29

COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND THE INTROVERTED STUDENT 1

The Effects of Cooperative Learning Activities on the Introverted Student

Chapter 1: Introduction

Statement of the Problem

Over the past three decades, the use of cooperative small-group learning in classrooms

has greatly increased (Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004). Today, it is a commonly-

used instructional method. Teachers plan lessons and structure classrooms in ways that facilitate

group activities. For example, students’ desks are often arranged so that they are grouped

together and facing each other in order to foster communication between students (Cain, 2012).

However, there exists a sub-group of the population for whom research indicates

independent study is the method best-suited to their particular learning styles. According to

Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences, some people fall into the category of

“intrapersonal” learners. These are people who learn best through use of introspection, and who

can best be taught through use of tools such as privacy and time (Lane, 2004).

Similarly, Carl Jung’s theory of psychological types identifies a sub-group of the

population whom he termed “introverts.” These are people who are energized by solitude, and

who find their energies drained through interactions with others (Burruss & Kaenzig, 1999).

Therefore, since the preferred learning styles of people falling into these categories –

intrapersonal learners / introverts – have been identified as being along the lines of independent

study and solitude, the basic question this research study aims to answer is whether the current

emphasis on group work / cooperative learning activities is beneficial or detrimental to, or has no

effect either way on, these students.


Significance of the Study

This research is important because – as underscored by the “No Child Left Behind”

legislation and the practice of “Differentiated Instruction” – it is the responsibility of educators to

reach all children; including both introverts and extraverts.

The main purpose of the NCLB act, according to the Washoe County (Reno, NV) School

District website, “…is to create the best educational opportunities for our nation's children and to

ensure that they have every opportunity to succeed regardless of their income, background, race

or ability.” And, the major purpose of differentiated instruction, according to Hall, Strangman

and Meyer, “is to maximize each student’s growth by meeting each student where he or she is.”

This implies that educators must provide children with environments designed to

optimize their learning experiences. As such, educators must be respectful and mindful of

different personality profiles and learning styles – including those of both extraverts and

introverts.

Tools often used to assess learning styles are based on Neil Fleming's VAK/VARK

model, and are limited to three – those of visual, auditory and tactile/kinesthetic learners (Leite,

Svinicki, and Shi, 2009, p.2). Based on the research done in this study, there appears to be a

lesser use of tools based on Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences model – which includes the learning

styles of interpersonal (extraverted) & intrapersonal (introverted) learners.

The potential impact this research could have on education might be a modification to the

way learning styles are assessed and addressed, as well as a re-thinking / altering of the current

emphasis on cooperative learning.


Chapter 2: Literature Review

Review of the Literature

To understand how teaching strategies such as cooperative learning affect the introverted

student, it is first necessary to understand what cooperative learning is, to what extent it is

currently being used in classrooms, and the reported results of its uses. It is also necessary to

understand what an introverted personality is, and what that student’s learning preferences are.

At the same time, it is helpful to understand the same things regarding an extraverted student,

and how the different personalities compare and contrast. A review of existing literature answers

these questions.

What is Cooperative Learning?

In cooperative learning, students work together in small groups on a structured activity.

They are individually accountable for their work, and the work of the group as a whole is

also assessed. Cooperative groups work face-to-face and learn to work as a team.

(Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004.)

To what extent is Cooperative Learning being used in classrooms? A review of the

existing literature reveals that the practice of cooperative learning / group activities – in which

students work collaboratively in team settings – is widely-used in today’s classrooms:

Over the past three decades, the use of small-group learning has greatly increased.

“Cooperative learning became especially popular in the early 1980s and has matured and

evolved since.” (Educational Broadcasting Corporation, 2004.)

“Today, elementary school classrooms are commonly arranged in pods of desks, the

better to foster group learning.” (Cain, 2012.)


What have been the overall results of Cooperative Learning methods? There also

exists in the literature an extensive body of research regarding the overall results of cooperative

learning methods. This research indicates that the overall results of cooperative learning methods

have been positive, improving both overall student achievement and interaction:

Since 1989 and the publication of Johnson and Johnson’s article Cooperation and

Competition: Theory and Research, cooperative learning has been widely studied and is accepted

today as a “best practice” with measurable benefits. (Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T., 1989.)

“A synthesis of research about cooperative learning finds that cooperative learning

strategies improve the achievement of students and their interpersonal relationships.” (Dotson,

2001.)

“Hundreds of studies have been undertaken to measure the success of cooperative

learning as an instructional method regarding social skills, student learning, and achievement

across all levels from primary grades through college.” (Dotson, 2001.)

What have been the results of Cooperative Learning with different classifications of

students? A review of existing literature reveals that the use of cooperative learning strategies

with different classifications of students – students from various backgrounds, grade levels and

achievement levels – has been largely successful. According to Johnson & Johnson: The general

consensus is that cooperative learning can and usually does result in positive student outcomes in

all domains. (As cited in Dotson, 2001.)

According to Slavin: “In 67 studies of the achievement effects of cooperative learning

61% found significantly greater achievement in cooperative than in traditionally taught

control groups. Positive effects were found in all major subjects, all grade levels, in


urban, rural, and suburban schools, and for high, average, and low achievers.” (As cited

in Dotson, 2001.)

Cooperative learning has been found to be a successful teaching strategy at all levels,

from pre-school to post-secondary (Dotson, 2001).

So far, the literature review has shed light on what cooperative learning is, to what extent

it is currently being used in classrooms, and the reported results of its uses. What follows is what

the review has revealed regarding the characteristics and learning preferences of introverted and

extraverted personalities, and how they compare and contrast.

Who are Introverts and Extraverts?

“Introvert” and “extravert” are terms used to describe a person’s personality /

temperament.

In their article “Introversion: The Often Forgotten Factor Impacting the Gifted” authors

Jill D. Burruss and Lisa Kaenzig write:

What is introversion? And how does it differ from extraversion? (Carl) Jung

(1923) … saw human behavior or habits as patterns and attempted to understand

and explain differences in personality according to those unique and variable

patterns. …introversion and extraversion were important components of his

mental or psychological traits theory. Most people utilize elements of both

introversion and extraversion in their daily lives; however there generally is a

dominant personality trait that reflects best how the individual prefers to work or

deal with the environment, especially in times of stress. The introvert’s main

focus is within his/her head, in the internal world of ideas and concepts; the


extravert’s primary focus is on the external world of people and activities (Myers

& Myers, 1980). Such preferences or personality traits impact many other

elements such as perception, learning style, judgment, and sociological

preferences (Meisgeier, Murphy & Meisgeier, 1989; Dunn & Dunn, 1978).

…Introverts get their energy from themselves and are drained by people;

extraverts get their energy from other people and are drained by being alone.

Simply put by eighth-grade English teacher, Ariel Sacks (Sacks, 2012): “Introverts are

energized by solitude. Extroverts are energized by interactions with others.”

So, a review of existing literature reveals that what defines one as having an introverted

or extraverted personality is essentially how that person obtains energy. Introverts and extraverts

are energized or de-energized by different stimuli, including their environment and other people.

They are also impacted by and respond differently to these different stimuli. According to Tami

Isaacs:

The main difference between the extrovert and the introvert is how each receives his

energy. An extrovert is energized by external sources, such as people, activities, and

objects. The introvert is the opposite. His sources of stimulation are internal ones such as

ideas, impressions, and emotions. Extroverts and introverts also vary in their response to

external stimulation. The introvert tries to reduce the amount of outside stimulation by

behaving in a passive manner and prefers fewer topics presented in more depth (Isaacs,

2009).

This, then, leads to the next topic included in the literature review – the learning styles of

the different personality profiles.


What are the learning styles/preferences of Introverts/Intrapersonal Learners? The

descriptions of introverted and extraverted personality profiles discussed above seem to correlate

with certain aspects of Howard Gardner’s learning styles theory – those regarding Interpersonal

and Intrapersonal learning styles. These styles are described as follows:

Interpersonal - understanding, interacting with others. These students learn

through interaction. They have many friends, empathy for others, street smarts.

They can be taught through group activities, seminars, dialogues. Tools include

the telephone, audio conferencing, time and attention from the instructor, video

conferencing, writing, computer conferencing, E-mail.

Intrapersonal - understanding one's own interests, goals. These learners

tend to shy away from others. They're in tune with their inner feelings; they have

wisdom, intuition and motivation, as well as a strong will, confidence and

opinions. They can be taught through independent study and introspection. Tools

include books, creative materials, diaries, privacy and time. They are the most

independent of the learners (Lane, 2004).

So, correlating these personality profiles and learning styles, it may be said that the

introverted student, having an intrapersonal learning style, is an independent learner who is

energized by working in solitude; while an extraverted student, having an interpersonal learning

style, learns through interaction with others, and is energized by those interactions. In his article,

“Embracing Introversion: Ways to Stimulate Reserved Students in the Classroom” author Tony

Baldasaro explains the specific learning needs of introverted/intrapersonal learners:


Introverts Need Time.

Recognizing that we already don’t have enough time to work with our students,

introverts need time to process. In The Introvert Advantage How to Thrive in an

Extroverted World, Marti Olsen Laney, Psy.D., makes the case that the brain chemistry in

introverts is markedly different than that of extroverts. In short, processing pathways in

introverts are longer and more complex than the pathways found in extroverts, thus it

takes them longer to process information.

…introverts need the freedom to explore their passions, the ability to connect with

similar learners, and the time to participate at their personal pace and depth, [and]

solitude…

Introverts Need Space.

Literally. Because introverts re-energize through solitude, it’s important to

provide the space needed for them to be alone. …Introvert friendly classrooms provide

private spaces for those who need them. In an elementary classroom, it may be a tunnel

or a “cave.” Older introverts may enjoy the peace and quiet found in a small couch or

chair tucked into the corner of your classroom. It could be something as simple as not

seating introverts in the middle of your classroom, but instead, providing a desk on the

edge of the class instead. Further, you may be able to assign the introvert to the back row

as the privacy may be just what is needed to allow for maximum learning (Baldasaro,

2012).

So, a review of the literature indicates that introverts have learning styles that differ from

those of extraverts – and require a certain degree of solitude and time to work at their own pace.


This then, prompts the question: how do these students function when operating in environments

not necessarily designed to suit their particular learning styles – i.e., cooperative learning

settings?

What have been the results of Cooperative Learning on Introverts/Intrapersonal

Learners? Although a review of the literature revealed an extensive body of research regarding

how cooperative learning practices affect students from various backgrounds, grade levels and

achievement levels, the research on cooperative learning methods as related to introverted /

intrapersonal learners seems to be limited. However, the recent publication of the book Quiet:

The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, by Susan Cain in 2012 has opened

the topic as to whether or not cooperative learning is a “best practice” for introverts.

In her blog post “Seen but Not Heard: The Introverts in Our Classrooms,” Genevieve

White discusses Cain’s book. She states that:

Quiet celebrates the positive features of the introvert personality, while examining

the way in which our society is geared up to celebrate and encourage extrovert

personality traits. As a result of this, introverts are placed in opposition to the

extrovert ideal and risk being undervalued and overlooked. Cain argues that our

celebration of the extrovert type begins in the classroom, where, from the start,

young pupils are grouped facing each other in pods, and are praised by teachers

for giving quick (rather than thoughtful or original) answers.

She goes on to say:


This extrovert ideal is perpetuated throughout education. As far as I know, almost

every teacher in my local authority has attended an intensive three day course on

cooperative learning.

The course is led by a charismatic Canadian, who, within minutes, has

participants designing group logos, creating group lessons (to be team taught, naturally)

and generally rejoicing in the power of togetherness. Every teacher I know has left the

training session with renewed enthusiasm and a determination to put their new tool kit of

cooperative learning ideas into immediate effect.

Their enthusiasm is genuine, and it is clear that cooperative teaching

provides an engaging and inclusive methodology. But do we risk alienating our

introverted learners through an over reliance on it?

In her blog post “What Do We Know About Our Introverted Students?” eighth-grade

English teacher Ariel Sacks seems to answer this question: “Progressive education can often

favor the extrovert because of the emphasis on cooperative learning and class participation.”

Schmeck and Lockhart also suggest that: “A learning environment stimulating enough for

extraverted students may be too stimulating for introverted students (and for the teacher).”

(Schmeck & Lockhart, 1983).

Furthermore, Burruss and Kaenzig suggest: “Instruction for the introvert should differ

from that provided for the extravert.” (Burruss & Kaenzig,1999).

So, a review of existing literature reveals that, while research regarding the results of

cooperative learning methods as related to introverted / intrapersonal learners appears to be

limited, there also appears to be an emerging school of thought that questions whether or not this


method is effective for this particular sub-group of the population, and suggests that there is a

need to offer introverted students some alternatives to the popular trend in cooperative learning.

Summary and Conclusion of the Literature

A review of the existing literature reveals that the practice of cooperative learning / group

activities – in which students work collaboratively in team settings – is widely-used in today’s

classrooms. It also shows that the overall results of these methods have been positive, improving

both overall student achievement and interaction, as well as that of different classifications of

students – i.e., students from various backgrounds, grade levels and achievement levels.

Existing literature also presents an extensive body of research regarding introverted and

extraverted personalities, and the learning styles of intrapersonal and interpersonal learners –

their characteristics, and their needs. It explains how the needs of introverts/intrapersonal

learners differ from those of extroverts/interpersonal learners, and how these personalities are

impacted by and respond differently to different stimuli, including their environment and other

people.

However, while existing research regarding the overall effects of cooperative learning, as

well as on different classifications of students – i.e., students from various backgrounds, grade

levels and achievement levels – is extensive, the research on cooperative learning methods

specifically related to the sub-group of introverted / intrapersonal learners seems to be limited.

While research in this area appears to be limited, there also appears to be an emerging school of

thought that questions whether or not cooperative learning methods are effective for this

particular sub-group of the population, and suggests that there is a need to offer introverted

students some alternatives to the popular trend in cooperative learning.


Furthermore, researchers estimate introverts make up 16 - 50 percent of the population.

(Buettner, 2012). This then, prompts the question: if introverts are in the minority, is it possible

that the studies regarding the positive effects of cooperative learning have been skewed by the

predominance of extraverts in the classroom? During this study, no research was found that

attempted to address this possibility.

Purpose of the Study

Using existing bodies of research, as well as first-hand experimentation in the classroom,

this study aimed to answer the question of whether the current emphasis on group work /

cooperative learning activities is beneficial or detrimental to, or has no effect either way on,

students whose nature is one of introversion.

Specific Research Questions

The specific guiding research questions for this study were:

1) What percentage of the student population can be identified as introverted?

2) What are the learning styles/preferences of students who have been identified as being

introverted?

3) To what extent do cooperative learning activities/structures affect introverted

students’ performance on mathematics assessments?

4) What effect do cooperative learning activities have on introverted students’ attitudes

toward learning in mathematics classrooms?

Hypothesis

In order to conduct this study the null hypothesis was used – i.e., there is no difference

between the results of lessons taught using: a) cooperative learning methods; vs. b) independent


learning methods. These results consist of: a) students’ performance on mathematics

assessments; and b) students’ attitudes toward learning in a mathematics classroom.

Terminology

• Cooperative Learning: A method of instruction that has students working together in

groups, usually with the goal of completing a specific task; an educational approach

which aims to organize classroom activities into academic and social learning

experiences.

• Extraversion: The state of being concerned primarily with things outside the self, with

the external environment rather than with one's own thoughts and feelings.

• Extravert: A person characterized by extraversion; a person concerned primarily with

the physical and social environment.

• Introversion: The state of being concerned primarily with one's own thoughts and

feelings rather than with the external environment.

• Introvert: A person characterized by introversion; a person characterized by concern

primarily with his or her own thoughts and feelings.


Chapter 3: Methods

Setting

This study was conducted at Lake Cormorant High School in DeSoto County, MS.

According to the Mississippi Department of Education website, Lake Cormorant High School

had a total of (907) students during the 2013-2014 school year. The enrollment by grade was:

(271) 9th-graders, (231) 10th-graders, (197) 11th-graders, and (175) 12th-graders. The

enrollment by gender sub-group was: 424 females (47%) and 483 males (53%). The enrollment

by ethnic sub-group was: 1.4% Asian, 39% African-American, 6% Hispanic, and 53% White,

and .6% Other. In 2013-2014, 69.8% of Lake Cormorant High School’s student population was

declared to be at or below the poverty level. (Mississippi Department of Education Office of

Research and Statistics.)

Participants

The study included the entire cohort of students at Lake Cormorant High School

attending the researcher’s Geometry classes during the Spring 2014 semester. This included

regular education students, inclusion special education students, and English language learners.

The population consisted of two classes. One class served as a control group, while the other

served as the treatment group. Table 1 shows the demographic breakdown of the study

participants.


Table 1

Demographic Characteristics of Study Participants

Totals Control Group Treatment Group

Demographic N % N % N %

White 31 50% 15 48% 16 52%

African-American 24 39% 14 45% 10 32%

Hispanic 5 8% 1 3% 4 13%

Asian 2 3% 1 3% 1 3%

Male 31 50% 16 52% 15 48%

Female 31 50% 15 48% 16 52%

Econ. Disadvantaged 44 71% 22 71% 22 71%

ELL 2 3% 0 0% 2 6%

Gifted & Talented 13 21% 6 19% 7 23%

SPED 2 3% 0 0% 2 6%

Note. The total number of participants was 62, with 31 participants in each group.

Data Collection Techniques

Research Question 1. To answer the research question: “What percentage of the student

population can be identified as introverted?”, students participated in a personality preferences

survey using a Jung Typology Test based on Carl Jung’s and Isabel Briggs Myers’ typological

approach to personality. (See Appendix.) Students took this test using the following website:

http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp.

Along with other measurements of personality preferences (Intuition/Sensing,


Thinking/Feeling, and Perceiving/Judging), this test measures a person’s preferences toward the

attitudes Extraversion or Introversion on a dual percentage scale from 0 (no preference toward

either Extraversion or Introversion) to 100 (strong preference toward either Extraversion or

Introversion). (See Fig 1.)

Figure 1. Dual percentage scale measuring a person’s preferences toward the attitudes

Extraversion or Introversion.

Students who scored from slight to strong (10% to 100%) on the extraversion scale were

identified as being extraverted, while students who scored from slight to strong (10% to 100%)

on the introversion scale were identified as being introverted.

Research Question 2. To answer the research question: “What are the learning

styles/preferences of students who have been identified as being introverted?”, students were

given a learning style inventory assessment. This learning style assessment is based on Howard

Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence model – which includes the learning styles of interpersonal

(extraverted) & intrapersonal (introverted) learners (Lane, 2004). Students took this assessment

using the following website: http://www.literacynet.org/mi/assessment/findyourstrengths.html.

Along with other measurements of learning styles (Linquistic, Kinesthetic, Musical,

0

None

100

Strong

Extraversion Introversion

100

Strong

Attitude Preference


Spatial, Naturalist, Logical/Mathematical), this test measures the frequency of a person’s usage

of the intelligences Intrapersonal or Interpersonal on a scale from 1 (used infrequently) to 5 (used

frequently). (See Appendix.)

Research Questions 3 & 4. To answer the research questions: “To what extent do

cooperative learning activities/structures affect introverted students’ performance on

mathematics assessments?” and “What effect do cooperative learning activities have on

introverted students’ attitudes toward learning in mathematics classrooms?”, lessons were

designed and administered according to the predominant learning styles of both interpersonal

(extraverted) & intrapersonal (introverted) learners – i.e., using both cooperative learning

techniques and independent learning techniques. Students were classified into control and

treatment groups, and each of these groups were further classified into sub-groups of extraverts

and introverts.

For question 3: “To what extent do cooperative learning activities/structures affect

introverted students’ performance on mathematics assessments?”, assessments were

administered to students at the end of each lesson unit and graded on a percentage scale. Mean

scores of lesson unit assessments for the sub-groups were tabulated and compared.

For question 4: “What effect do cooperative learning activities have on introverted

students’ attitudes toward learning in mathematics classrooms?”, Likert-style questionnaires

were administered to students at the end of each lesson unit and scored on a scale from 1 to 5,

with 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree. Mean scores of the responses of the sub-groups

to these questionnaires were tabulated and compared.


Procedures of the Study

One teacher – the researcher – participated in this study. The study was conducted during

the Spring semester of 2014.

First, the teacher obtained permission from the school principal to conduct the study. The

teacher arranged a meeting with the principal to discuss the study’s purpose and parameters. The

teacher explained the research questions the study aimed to answer as well as the methods to be

used -- including the participants, the instruments to be used, and the time involved.

Next, the teacher obtained permission from participants’ parents/guardians to conduct the

study. A letter explaining the purpose and parameters of the study was sent to parents/guardians,

requesting permission for their students ‘participation. Permission for participation for all but

two students was received; these two students did not participate in nor does any data about them

appear in this study.

To answer the first two research questions, students’ personality profiles

(Introversion/Extraversion) and learning styles (Intrapersonal/Interpersonal) were identified

using the methods described in the “Data Collection Techniques” section above.

To answer the next two research questions regarding student performance and attitudes,

students were first organized into two classes – one serving as a control group, and the other

serving as a treatment group. Then, using the data collected from the personality profile and

learning style identification process described in the “Data Collection Techniques” section

above, each of these groups was further classified into sub-groups of extraverts and introverts.

From this process, students were classified according to four total sub-groups for study. (See

Table 2.)


Table 2

Sub-Group Classification of Study Participants

Control Group Treatment Group

Extraversion Sub-Group 1 Sub-Group 3

Introversion Sub-Group 2 Sub-Group 4

Lessons were then designed and administered according to the predominant learning

styles of both interpersonal (extraverted) & intrapersonal (introverted) learners – i.e., using both

cooperative learning techniques and independent learning techniques.

The control group received instruction consisting of cooperative learning techniques

only. The treatment group received instruction consisting of both cooperative learning techniques

and independent learning techniques. Specifically, types of instruction for this group alternated

between lesson units. During lesson unit numbers 1, 3, 5 and 7 (odd-numbered tests), the

treatment group received instruction consisting of cooperative learning techniques only; during

lesson unit numbers 2, 4, 6 and 8 (even-numbered tests), the treatment group received instruction

consisting of independent learning techniques only. The lesson units were taught in numerical

sequence. Except for the difference in teaching methods (cooperative learning techniques vs.

independent learning techniques), lessons were the same for both groups; content, rigor-levels,

timing, assessment were consistent among both groups.

Lesson unit assessments and attitude surveys were administered to students at the end of

each lesson unit. Mean scores of lesson unit assessments and attitude surveys for the four sub-

groups shown in Table 2 were tabulated and compared.


Data Analysis

This study involved the use of quantitative research methods.


population can be identified as introverted?”, students’ personality profiles were determined

using a Jung Typology Test, which measures a person’s preferences toward the attitudes

Extraversion or Introversion on a dual percentage scale from 0 (no preference toward either

Extraversion or Introversion) to 100 (strong preference toward either Extraversion or

Introversion). Students who scored from slight to strong (10% to 100%) on the extraversion scale

were identified as being extraverted, while students who scored from slight to strong (10% to

100%) on the introversion scale were identified as being introverted. The number of students

who were identified as being introverted according to this test (18) was then divided by the total

number of participants (62) to calculate the percentage of the student population that could be

identified as being introverted (29%). (Calculation: 18 introverts ÷ 62 participants = 29%

percent of students introverted.)



given a learning style inventory assessment based on Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence

model – which includes the learning styles of interpersonal (extraverted) & intrapersonal

(introverted) learners (Lane, 2004). Along with other measurements of learning styles, this test

measures the frequency of a person’s usage of the intelligences Intrapersonal or Interpersonal on

a scale from 1 (used infrequently) to 5 (used frequently). A score of >3 on any particular

intelligence indicates that the test-taker uses that intelligence quite often to help them learn.


The scores of students who were identified as having a personality preference of

Introversion were then examined and compared to see if there existed a correlation between

having an Intrapersonal learning style and an Introverted personality preference.

Research Questions 3. To answer the research question: “To what extent do cooperative

learning activities/structures affect introverted students’ performance on mathematics

assessments?”, assessments were administered to students at the end of each lesson unit and

graded on a percentage scale. Mean scores of lesson unit assessments for the sub-groups were

tabulated and compared.

Research Questions 4. To answer the research question: “What effect do cooperative

learning activities have on introverted students’ attitudes toward learning in mathematics

classrooms?”, Likert-style questionnaires were administered to students at the end of each lesson

unit and scored on a scale from 1 to 5, with 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree. Mean

scores of the responses of the sub-groups to these questionnaires were tabulated and compared.

Significance Levels. To determine the significance levels of the assessment results,

Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used.


Chapter 4: Results

The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which the current emphasis on the

use of cooperative learning strategies in education affect students whose personality preference is

one of introversion. This research is important because it is the responsibility of educators to

reach all children; this includes both introverts and extraverts. Methods used in this study

consisted of: establishing control and treatment groups; identifying students’ personality

preferences (extraversion / introversion) and learning styles (interpersonal / intrapersonal);

alternating between uses of lesson formats (cooperative learning techniques / independent

learning techniques); assessing students’ math performance using unit tests; and assessing

students’ post-lesson-unit attitudes using Likert-style questionnaires. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests

were used to determine the significance levels of the assessment results. The research questions

driving this study were: 1) what percentage of the student population can be identified as

introverted; 2) what are the learning styles/preferences of students who have been identified as

being introverted; 3) to what extent do cooperative learning activities/structures affect

introverted students’ performance on mathematics assessments; and 4) what effect do

cooperative learning activities have on introverted students’ attitudes toward learning in

mathematics classrooms?

The whole data set was screened for: 1) incorrectly-entered data; 2) missing values; 3)

outliers; 4) normality; and 5) homogeneity of variance. Evaluation of data revealed no

incorrectly-entered data or missing values. However, six outliers were found to exist; five mild

and one extreme. For purposes of this study, in order to maintain integrity of the research and its

discovery of empirical reality, no variables or outlier values were removed or transformed;


outliers remained unrestricted as part of the data set. To determine whether or not continuous

variables were normally distributed, frequency histograms with superimposed normal curves

were obtained, values of skewness and kurtosis examined, and tests of normality – Kolmogorov-

Smirnov and Shapiro-Wilk – obtained. Z-scores for both skewness and kurtosis for all variables

were obtained by dividing skewness and kurtosis values by their given standard errors. Z-scores

> 3 resulted on 5 occasions: on Unit Tests 2, 3, & 6 for skewness, and on Unit Test 5 for both

skewness and kurtosis. All values shown in Shapiro-Wilk test are < .05, indicating data for all

variables are non-normal. For purposes of this study, in order to detect real differences or

variability in the research data, the decision was made to leave the data non-normal, and conduct

non-parametric tests. To screen for homogeneity of variance, a two-way ANOVA test was

performed. The probability (Sig.) value of .04 appearing in Levene’s Test is < .05, indicating

homogeneity of variance assumption was not met. Therefore, the non-parametric Wilcoxon

signed-rank test was used for analysis purposes of this study.


population can be identified as introverted?”, students participated in a personality preferences

survey using a Jung Typology Test based on Carl Jung’s and Isabel Briggs Myers’ typological

approach to personality. (See “Methods: Data Collection Techniques” section above.) The

numbers of students identified as being Extraverted or Introverted – according to this survey –

are shown in Table 3.


Table 3

Personality Preferences of Study Participants

Totals Control Group Treatment Group

Preference N % N % N %

Extraversion 44 71% 22 71% 22 71%

Introversion 18 29% 9 29% 9 29%



given a learning style inventory assessment based on Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence

model – which includes the learning styles of Interpersonal (Extraverted) & Intrapersonal

(Introverted) learners (Lane, 2004). (See “Methods: Data Collection Techniques” section above.)

Of the eighteen students identified as having a personality preference of Introversion,

fifteen (83%) had an average score > 3 for the intelligence of “Intrapersonal” on this assessment,

indicating that they use that intelligence often to help them learn. All eighteen (100%) had a

higher average score for the intelligence of “Intrapersonal” than that of “Interpersonal.”

Research Questions 3. To answer the research question: “To what extent do cooperative

learning activities/structures affect introverted students’ performance on mathematics

assessments?”, lessons were designed and administered according to the predominant learning

styles of both interpersonal (extraverted) & intrapersonal (introverted) learners – i.e., using both

cooperative learning techniques and independent learning techniques.

The control group received instruction consisting of cooperative learning techniques

only. The treatment group received instruction consisting of both cooperative learning techniques


and independent learning techniques. Specifically, types of instruction for this group alternated

between lesson units. During lesson unit numbers 1, 3, 5 and 7 (odd-numbered tests), the

treatment group received instruction consisting of cooperative learning techniques only; during

lesson unit numbers 2, 4, 6 and 8 (even-numbered tests), the treatment group received instruction

consisting of independent learning techniques only. The lesson units were taught in numerical

sequence.

Mean scores of lesson unit assessments for the four sub-groups shown in Table 3 were

tabulated and compared. (See Fig. 2.)

Figure 2. Comparison of sub-groups’ performances on unit assessments.

81.1877.33 79.18

82.6781.4577.78

82.73

77.00

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Extraverts 1 Introverts 2 Extraverts 3 Introverts 4

Raw Mean Total Unit Tests 1, 3, 5, 7 Raw Mean Total Unit Tests 2, 4, 6, 8

Control Group

Instructional Technique:

Cooperative Only

Treatment Group


Alternated between Independent & Cooperative

CO

OP

ER

AT

IVE

CO

OP

ER

AT

IVE

CO

OP

ER

AT

IVE

CO

OP

ER

AT

IVE

CO

OP

ER

AT

IVE

CO

OP

ER

AT

IVE

IND

EP

EN

DE

NT

IND

EP

EN

DE

NT


In the control group, which received instruction consisting of cooperative learning

techniques only, the aggregated mean scores between odd-numbered unit tests and even-

numbered unit tests for extrovert sub-group 1 were consistent , varying by < 1 percentage point.

The same held true for introvert sub-group 2. However, the aggregated mean scores for the

introvert sub-group were lower than that of the extravert sub-group, varying by almost 4

percentage points on each of the respective unit test measures.

In the treatment group, which received instruction of alternating cooperative and

independent learning strategies, there was greater variation in the mean test scores than that of

the control group. The aggregated mean scores between odd-numbered unit tests and even-

numbered unit tests for extrovert sub-group 3 varied by 3.55 percentage points, with the higher

mean score belonging to tests following lessons taught using cooperative learning techniques.

For introvert sub-group 4, the scores between the same tests varied by 5.67 percentage points,

with the higher mean score belonging to tests following lessons taught using independent

learning techniques.

Based on this analysis, it would appear that extraverted sub-groups and introverted sub-

groups responded differently to different types of instruction; extraverted students’ test scores were

generally higher following lesson units taught using cooperative learning techniques, while

introverted students’ test scores were generally higher following lesson units taught using

independent learning techniques.

To test the significance levels of the different sub-groups’ performances, Wilcoxon signed-

rank tests were run for each group using IBM SPSS Statistics software, comparing the overall

means of their performances on assessments following each type of lesson unit – i.e., the means of


odd-number lesson units compared to the means of even-numbered lesson units. An alpha level of

.05 was used for all statistical tests. The results of these tests appear in Table 4.

Table 4

Wilcoxon signed-rank test results of Student Performances on Lesson Unit

Assessments

Descriptive Statistics Ranks Test

Stats

Sub-

Group

Unit

Tests N Mean

Std.

Dev. Min Max

N

Even

< Odd

N

Even

> Odd

N

Even

= Odd

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Reject

/ Fail

to

Reject

Null

1 Ctrl

Extra

Odd 22 81.18 13.56 38 100

13 8 1 .702 Fail

Even 22 81.45 9.73 59 98

2 Ctrl

Intro

Odd 9 77.33 19.16 38 100

2 5 2 .551 Fail

Even 9 77.78 17.45 48 100

3

Trmt

Extra

Odd 22 79.18 9.13 61 94

4 18 0 .013 Reject

Even 22 82.73 10.14 67 100

4

Trmt

Intro

Odd 9 82.67 17.84 52 100

8 0 1 .012 Reject

Even 9 77.00 19.12 52 97


The results of the Wilcoxon tests indicated no significant differences between the means

of the odd and even-numbered unit tests for either sub-group in the control group: extravert sub-

group 1 (p = .702 > .05), introvert sub-group 2 (p = .551 > .05). However, for the treatment

group, significant differences between the means of the odd and even-numbered unit tests were

revealed for each sub-group: extravert sub-group 3 (p = .013 < .05), introvert sub-group 4 (p =

.012 < .05).

Research Questions 4. To answer the research question: “What effect do cooperative

learning activities have on introverted students’ attitudes toward learning in mathematics

classrooms?”, students completed Likert-style questionnaires following each lesson unit. The

questionnaires were based on a five-level scale, with 1 = Strongly Disagree, 5 = Strongly Agree.

Mean scores of the responses of the four sub-groups to these questionnaires were

tabulated and compared. (See Fig. 3.)


Figure 3. Comparison of sub-groups’ responses to attitude surveys following lesson

units.

In the control group, which received instruction consisting of cooperative learning

techniques only, the aggregated mean scores between odd-numbered units and even-numbered

units for extrovert sub-group 1 were consistent , varying by .13 point. The scores for sub-group 2

were also consistent, varying by .2 point. However, the aggregated mean scores for the introvert

sub-group were lower than that of the extravert sub-group, varying by > 1 point on each of the

respective attitude response measures.

3.66

2.11

2.49

3.613.53

2.31

3.72

2.75

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Extraverts 1 Introverts 2 Extraverts 3 Introverts 4

Raw Mean Total Attitude Surveys 1, 3, 5, 7 Raw Mean Total Attitude Surveys 2, 4, 6, 8

Control Group


Cooperative Only

Treatment Group


Alternated between Independent & Cooperative

CO

OP

ER

AT

IVE

CO

OP

ER

AT

IVE

CO

OP

ER

AT

IVE

CO

OP

ER

AT

IVE

CO

OP

ER

AT

IVE

CO

OP

ER

AT

IVE

IND

EP

EN

DE

NT

IND

EP

EN

DE

NT


In the treatment group, which received instruction of alternating cooperative and

independent learning strategies, there was greater variation in the mean response scores than that

of the control group. The aggregated mean scores between odd-numbered units and even-

numbered units for extrovert sub-group 3 varied by 1.23 points, with the higher mean score

belonging to attitude responses following lessons taught using cooperative learning techniques.

For introvert sub-group 4, the scores between the same units varied by .86 percentage points,

with the higher mean score belonging to attitude responses following lessons taught using

independent learning techniques.

Based on this analysis, it would appear that extraverted sub-groups and introverted sub-

groups responded differently to different types of instruction; extraverted students’ attitude

response scores were generally higher following lesson units taught using cooperative learning

techniques, while introverted students’ attitude response scores were generally higher following

lesson units taught using independent learning techniques.

To test the significance levels of the different sub-groups’ response scores, Wilcoxon

signed-rank tests were run for each group using IBM SPSS Statistics software, comparing the

overall means of their responses on questionnaires following each type of lesson unit – i.e., the

means of odd-number lesson units compared to the means of even-numbered lesson units. An

alpha level of .05 was used for all statistical tests. The results of these tests appear in Table 5.


Table 5

Wilcoxon signed-rank test results of Student Responses to Lesson Unit Surveys

Descriptive Statistics Ranks Test

Stats

Sub-

Group

Unit

Tests N Mean

Std.

Dev. Min Max

N

Even

< Odd

N

Even

> Odd

N

Even

= Odd

Sig.

(2-

tailed)

Reject

/ Fail

to

Reject

Null

1 Ctrl

Extra

Odd 22 3.66 .71 2.25 4.75

13 6 3 .135 Fail

Even 22 3.53 .58 2.50 4.50

2 Ctrl

Intro

Odd 9 2.11 .22 1.75 2.50

2 4 3 .167 Fail

Even 9 2.31 .45 1.75 3.25

3

Trmt

Extra

Odd 22 2.47 .66 1.50 3.50

0 21 1 .000 Reject

Even 22 3.67 .45 2.75 4.75

4

Trmt

Intro

Odd 9 3.61 .49 3.00 4.50

8 1 0 .010 Reject

Even 9 2.75 .43 2.25 3.75

The results of the Wilcoxon tests indicated no significant differences between the means

of the attitude responses to odd and even-numbered units for either sub-group in the control

group: extravert sub-group 1 (p = .135 > .05), introvert sub-group 2 (p = .167 > .05). However,

for the treatment group, significant differences between the means of the odd and even-numbered


units were revealed for each sub-group: extravert sub-group 3 (p = .000 < .05), introvert sub-

group 4 (p = .010 < .05).


Chapter 5: Discussion

Interpretation of Results

In this study, the null hypothesis – stating that there would be no difference between the

results of lessons taught using cooperative learning methods vs. independent learning methods,

among students identified as being introverted regarding their performance on mathematics

assessments or in their attitudes toward learning in a mathematics classroom– was rejected. This

study found that introverted students were significantly more successful on their assessments

following – and had a statistically significant preference for – independent learning activities.

Incidentally, the study found that the opposite held true for students identified as having

extraverted personality profiles, i.e., that they were significantly more successful on their

assessments following – and had a statistically significant preference for – cooperative learning

activities.

Therefore, the study seems to indicate that there is a significant correlation between

students’ personality preferences toward introversion or extraversion and their performance and

attitudes toward learning in a mathematics classroom. The results seem to support the positions

of Barruss and Kaenzig, (1999) and Cain, (2012), who assert that the learning needs of

introverted students differ from those of extraverted students, and therefore also suggest that

there is a need to offer introverted students alternatives to the popular method of cooperative

learning.

Limitations of the Study

Sample Size. This scope of this study was limited to two classes of one researcher and

one subject at one school in a rural area. Therefore, since the sample size was small, the students


involved in this study may not be representative of the entire population of students.

Socio-economic Status. The school in which the study was conducted is classified as

being Title 1 under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), a program providing

financial assistance to states and school districts to meet the needs of educationally at-risk

students, especially in high-poverty schools. (US Department of Education, 2014.) In 2013-2014,

69.8 percent of Lake Cormorant High School’s student population was declared to be at or below

the poverty level (Mississippi Department of Education Office of Research and Statistics). This

compares to the latest (2010-2011) US Department of Education statistics which state, that on

average, 48 percent of students in all states that reported this information, and 44 percent in rural

areas, were declared to be at or below the poverty level (Keaton, 2012). Therefore, since the

percent of at-risk students included in the study is higher than that of the national average, as

well as that of other rural areas, the students involved in this study may not be representative of

the entire population of students.

Cultural Context. The school in which the study was conducted is geographically

located in the Delta region of Mississippi. Culturally, it is located in the area known as the “Deep

South.” This area is “…delineated as being those states… where things most often thought of as

‘Southern’ exist in their most concentrated form.” (Reed & Volberg, 1996). Culturally-speaking,

the specific area in which the school is located is comparatively isolated; historically, there has

not been a large degree of people moving to or from this area. Families in this area tend to live

there generation after generation. As such, traditions, ideas, and lifestyles in this area tend to be

deeply-rooted. Because of minimal immigration / emigration, students in this area may not have

the same opportunity of being exposed to different ideas and ways of thinking that students in


more migrationally-active, diverse areas might have. Therefore, since the culture of students in

this area may be different from those of students in other areas of the country, the students

involved in this study may not be representative of the entire population of students.

Data Accuracy/Reliability. It is also possible – since high school students often adapt

their behavior and attitudes to conform to the perceived dominant culture in order to be accepted

(Reed, 2008) – that the students may not have responded to the questions on the attitude survey

authentically.

Implications of Research

Research Question 1. The first research question was: “What percentage of the student

population can be identified as introverted?”

Existing studies estimate that 16-50% of the total population is introverted. In this study,

29% of the study participants were identified as being introverted. If this is, indeed,

representative of the whole population, and introverts are truly a minority in the classroom, then

the existing research indicating that cooperative learning techniques are effective with the

student population as a whole may be skewed by the predominance of extraverts in the

classroom.

Research Question 2. The second research question was: “What are the learning

styles/preferences of students who have been identified as introverted?”

Of the study participants identified as having a personality preference of Introversion, a

learning styles assessment indicated that a high majority (83%) use the intelligence

“Intrapersonal” frequently to help them learn, and that all of them (100%) favored the

intelligence of “Intrapersonal” over that of “Interpersonal.”


This implies that – since it is the responsibility of educators to reach all children –

educators must take steps to identify students’ styles, including those of introverts and extraverts,

and adapt their instruction accordingly. Therefore, since the research conducted in this study

found that tools often used to identify learning styles are based on Neil Fleming's VAK/VARK

model, and are limited to three – those of visual, auditory and tactile/kinesthetic learners (Leite,

Svinicki, and Shi, 2009, p.2), there needs to be a commensurable use of tools based on Gardner’s

Multiple Intelligences model – which includes the learning styles of interpersonal (extraverted)

& intrapersonal (introverted) learners.

Regarding adapting instruction for introverts, while no quantitative study was found that

closely matches this one, research shows that there is a trend developing among educators to

adapt cooperative learning methodology for introverts. Some of these ideas include using more

strategies like “Think, Pair, Share,” which allows introverts the time they need to process, and

the comfort of having to directly interact with only one partner, rather than a group, in which

they might feel overwhelmed (Long, 2013). Another growing trend is asynchronous learning

opportunities such as online discussion board interaction, which allows introverts the opportunity

to share their ideas from a “quiet” and thoughtful place. Some teachers actually create a physical

quiet space in the classroom where introverts may retreat to work (Baldasaro, 2012). Others are

rethinking their definitions of “class participation,” on which they base students’ grades

according to the degree to which they join in class discussions (Monohan, 2013).

The results of this study suggest that ideas such as these warrant further investigation.

Research Questions 3 & 4. The final two research questions are the most significant,

and appear to be unique to this study. The questions were: “What effect do cooperative learning


activities have on introverted students’ performance on mathematics assessments,” and “What

effect do cooperative learning activities have on introverted students’ attitudes toward learning in

on mathematics classrooms?”

Statistical tests led to a rejection of the null hypothesis – that there would be no

difference between the results of lessons taught using cooperative learning methods vs.

independent learning methods, among students identified as being introverted – pertaining to

both these questions. The results of data analysis for introverts in the treatment group pertaining

to the first question were significant at the .05 level (p = .012 < .05), while the results pertaining

to the second question were significant at the .01 level (p = .010 ≤ .01). Furthermore, results of

data analysis for extraverts in the treatment group pertaining to the first question were significant

at the .05 level (p = .013 < .05), while the results pertaining to the second question were

significant at the .01 level (p = .000 ≤ .01). Introverted students’ test and attitude scores were

significantly higher following lesson units taught using independent learning techniques, while

extraverted students’ test and attitude scores were significantly higher following lesson units

taught using cooperative learning techniques.

Based on this analysis, it would appear that introverts and extraverts respond differently

to different types of instruction. The results, therefore, seem to strongly challenge the prevailing

ideology that cooperative learning is a best practice for all learners, and suggest that for

introverts, cooperative learning may not be the most effective methodology.

Recommendations for Future Research

To reiterate, a significant limitation of this study was that it cannot be assumed that the

sampling represents the whole population. Yet, the findings are compelling and suggest that


there is a need for a similar study to be performed with a wider sampling. A recommendation for

further study would be to look at students in different grade levels and content areas. Would

similar findings be discovered among elementary school introverts in another discipline?

Summary

While cooperative learning has been established as highly effective and is widely used,

this study suggests that this may be true because it is a good fit for the extroverted learners who

appear to be a majority of the population. This could very well be skewing the results in favor of

this methodology. This study shows that introverted learners performed significantly better and

expressed feeling more comfortable when the learning strategies more closely matched their

independent learning styles. The implication is that a truly differentiated classroom should offer

the introverted learner the time and space they need to process information effectively. Educators

need to consider the needs of this population and find creative ways to allow introverts to interact

with the curriculum in a manner that is a best fits their learning styles.


References

Baldasaro, T. (2012, September 10). Embracing Introversion: Ways to Stimulate Reserved

Students in the Classroom. Edutopia. Retrieved from

http://www.edutopia.org/blog/introverted-students-in-classroom-tony-baldasaro

Barruss, J. D, & Kaenzig, L. (1999, Fall). Introversion: The Often Forgotten Factor Impacting

the Gifted. Virginia Association for the Gifted Newsletter, 1999 Fall 21 (1). Retrieved

from http://www.sengifted.org/archives/articles/introversion-the-often-forgotten-factor-

impacting-the-gifted

Binder, K. (2012, February 3). Teaching Introverts to Adapt to an Extroverted Society. [Web log

post.] Retrieved from http://kristenbinder.wordpress.com/2012/02/03/teaching-introverts-

to-adapt-to-an-extroverted-society/

Buettner, D. (2012, May 14). Are Extroverts Happier Than Introverts? Thrive. Retrieved from

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/thrive/

Cain, S. (2012, April 18). The Power of Introverts. The Huffington Post. Retrieved June 30,

2014, from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-cain/introverts-_b_1432650.html

Cain, S. (2012). Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World that Can’t Stop Talking. New York,

NY: Crown Publishing Group

Cain, S. (2012, January 13). The Rise of the New Groupthink. The New York Times, Sunday

Review. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/15/opinion/sunday/the-rise-of-

the-new-groupthink.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0


Chapman, A. (2012). Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligences. Retrieved from

http://www.businessballs.com/howardgardnermultipleintelligences.htm

Dotson, J.M. (2001, Winter). Cooperative Learning Structures Can Increase Student

Achievement. Kagan Online Magazine. Retrieved from

http://www.kaganonline.com/free_articles/research_and_rationale/increase_achievement.

php

Educational Broadcasting Corporation (2004). Workshop: Cooperative & Collaborative

Learning. Thirteen / Ed Online / Concept to Classroom. Retrieved from

http://www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/coopcollab/index.html

Gay, L.R., Mills, G.E. & Airasian, P. (2012). Educational Research: Competencies for Analysis

and Applications, 10th Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Hall, T., Strangman, N. & Meyer A. (2011, January 14). Differentiated instruction and

implication for udl implementation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the

General Curriculum. Retrieved from

http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/differentiated_instruction_udl

Isaacs, T. (2009, July 27). Introverted Students in the Classroom: How to Bring Out Their Best.

Faculty Focus. Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-

learning/introverted-students-in-the-classroom-how-to-bring-out-their-best/

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research.

Edina, Minn. : Interaction Book Company


Johnson, D. W. & Johnson R. T. (1999). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative, Reed, E.

(2008, March 20). A Futile Struggle? Power and Conformity in High School and the

Society at Large. Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge: Vol.

6: Iss. 2, Article 17. 6(2) 178–187. Retrieved from

http://scholarworks.umb.edu/humanarchitecture/vol6/iss2/17

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson R. T. (1999). Learning Together and Alone: Cooperative,

Competitive, and Individualistic Learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon

Lane, C. (2004). The Distance Learning Technology Resource Guide. originated with WestEd

Distance Learning Resource Network (DLRN). Retrieved from

http://www.edgateway.net/cs/rtecp/view/rtec_sub/131

Leite, W. L., Svinicki, M. & Shi, Y. (2009). Attempted Validation of the Scores of the VARK:

Learning Styles Inventory With Multitrait–Multimethod Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Models. SAGE Publications, 2009, 2. Retrieved from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_styles

Long, C. (2013, March 21). Author of ‘Quiet’ Talks About How to Engage Introverts in the

Classroom. NEA Today RSS. Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2013/03/21/author-of-

quiet-talks-about-engaging-introverts-in-the-classroom/

Millis, B J. (2002). Enhanced Learning – and More! – Through Cooperative Learning. Idea

Paper #38. Retrieved from http://ideaedu.org/

Mississippi Department of Education Office of Research and Statistics. Web

Manager/Developer: Anthony Stevenson. Retrieved from


http://orsap.mde.k12.ms.us/MAARS/maarsMS_TestResultsProcessor.jsp?userSessionId=

127&EmbargoAccess=0&SchoolId=16171&TestPanel=1&BrowserType=2

Monahan, N. (2013, October 28). Keeping Introverts in Mind in Your Active Learning

Classroom. Faculty Focus: Higher Ed Teaching Strategies from Magna Publications.

Retrieved from http://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/teaching-and-learning/keeping-

introverts-in-mind-in-your-active-learning-classroom/#sthash.WuZMPJvH.dpuf

Reed, J., & Volberg, D. (1996). 1001 Things Everyone Should Know About the South. New

York, NY: Doubleday Publishing Group.

Robinson, A. (1991). Cooperative Learning and the Academically Talented Student. Retrieved

from http://www.gifted.uconn.edu/nrcgt/reports/rbdm9106/rbdm9106.pdf

Sacks, A. (2012, January 30). What Do We Know About Our Introverted Students? On The

Shoulders of Giants. [Web log post.] Retrieved from

http://teacherleaders.typepad.com/shoulders_of_giants/2012/01/what-do-we-know-about-

our-introverted-students.html

Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48,

71-82.

Schmeck, Ronald R. & Lockhart, Dan (1983, February). Introverts and Extraverts Require

Different Learning Environments. Educational Leadership, 40(5) 54–55. Retrieved from

https://www.uta.edu/library/databases/

Keaton, P. (2012, October). Numbers and Types of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools

From the Common Core of Data: School Year 2010–11: First Look. National Center for


Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Retrieved from

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012325rev.pdf

Walsh, B. (2012, February 6). The Upside Of Being An Introvert (And Why Extroverts Are

Overrated). Time Magazine, 2012 February 6. Retrieved from

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2105432,00.html#ixzz2R3Md3XqK

Washoe County School District. (2013, April 20). Understanding No Child Left Behind.

Retrieved from http://www.washoe.k12.nv.us/parents/no-child-left-behind

White, Genevieve. (2012, May 2). Seen But Not Heard: The Introverts in Our Classrooms. The

Guardian Teacher Network. [Web log post.] Retrieved from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2012/may/02/introverts-

classrooms-education


Appendices

Sample A / Part 1: Student personality preferences survey using Jung Typology Test.

From: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp.

Humanmetrics Jung Typology Test™

Your Type: INTJ Introvert(11%) iNtuitive(38%) Thinking(12%) Judging(89%)

• You have slight preference of Introversion over Extraversion (11%)

• You have moderate preference of Intuition over Sensing (38%)

• You have slight preference of Thinking over Feeling (12%)

• You have strong preference of Judging over Perceiving (89%)

How Do You Want to Leverage The Type?

Those who took this test also took these tests:

Jung Marriage Test™ Write down your and your partner’s type formulae, the strength of the

preferences percentages shown above and discover your compatibility.

Risk Attitudes Profiler™ Why troubles stick to you? Can you take control of your fortune?

Leverage your risk type for success.

Entrepreneur Test Find the most favorable businesses and franchises for you.

Role Model Profiler™ Intentionally or unconsciously, we are trying to follow our role model's

behavior, although often our own traits do not match very well those of our role model. Find

which celebrities have personalities are similar to yours.


Sample A / Part 2: Student personality preferences survey using Jung Typology Test / Self-

Awareness and Personal Growth. From: http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp.


Sample B: Student learning style assessment based on Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence

model. From: http://www.literacynet.org/mi/assessment/findyourstrengths.html.


Sample B (Continued): Student learning style assessment.


Biographical Sketch

Carl Mahlmann is the researcher behind this study. Prior to entering the education field,

he enjoyed a career as a production manager / art director in the marketing communications field

in New York City. Introduced to teaching and the South by the Teach For America Corps, he has

taught middle school and high school mathematics in Mississippi for the past four years. He

currently teaches geometry at Lake Cormorant High School. He has an Associate in Applied

Sciences degree in Advertising Production Management from New York City Technical College,

a Bachelor’s degree in Management & Communications from Adelphi University, and is

currently working on his Master’s degree in Curriculum & Instruction with an Emphasis in

Mathematics at the University of Texas at Arlington.

cooperative learning & the introverted student -- graduate thesis

Documents