This article was downloaded by: [University of North Texas]On: 21 November 2014, At: 06:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Higher Education Research &DevelopmentPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cher20

Using group projects as a strategy toincrease cooperation among low- andhigh-achieving studentsThi Hong Thanh Phama

a School of Education, University of Queensland, Brisbane, St.LuciaAustraliaPublished online: 27 Aug 2013.

To cite this article: Thi Hong Thanh Pham (2013) Using group projects as a strategy to increasecooperation among low- and high-achieving students, Higher Education Research & Development,32:6, 993-1006, DOI: 10.1080/07294360.2013.806436

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.806436

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Using group projects as a strategy to increase cooperation amonglow- and high-achieving students

Thi Hong Thanh Pham*

School of Education, University of Queensland, Brisbane, St. Lucia, Australia

This study aimed to investigate the perceptions, interactions and behaviours ofdifferent-ability college students when they worked on different types ofassessments. Two classes of 145 Vietnamese college students participated in thisthree-month study. The students were assigned to mixed-ability groups, each ofwhich consisted of five students. The results show that assessment designed as agroup project helped close the gap in communication and interactions betweendifferent-ability students within groups. When the students engaged withassessment as a group project, all levels of performers increased productivelearning behaviours and provided more relevant verbal help and assistance toeach other. Importantly, this type of assessment created various opportunities forthe low performers to participate in, and make a contribution to, group tasks. Asa result, all group members became interested in working with others. Theyperceived cooperative learning groups as being enjoyable and fun.

Keywords: assessment; cooperative learning; diversity; group project; highereducation; multiple-choice test; Vietnam

Introduction

Since the early-1990s when Vietnam implemented the Renovation policy (known asDoi Moi), the country started to shift from a centrally-controlled to a market-orientedeconomy, where small enterprises and advanced technology emerged as predominantparts of the economy. The new economy requires workers at all levels to be trainedwith new working skills like creativity, independence, flexibility and team work. Unfor-tunately, these skills are beyond the focus of the traditional teacher-centred learningpractices. Therefore, the State has continuously called for teaching and learningreforms. Student-centred learning practices such as teamwork, group assignmentsand joint projects are encouraged to be brought to Vietnamese classrooms. Recently,cooperative learning has become the preferred method of instruction by Vietnamesehigher education institutions as its effectiveness has been well-documented, withresults such as improving academic outcomes, developing critical thinking and enhan-cing social skills of learners (Gillies, 2009; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1998).

However, according to an investigation conducted by Thanh-Pham, Gillies, andRenshaw (2011), cooperative learning does not really work well in Vietnam because itfaces a number of local institutional and cultural barriers. Institutionally, large class sizeand poor material resources severely discourage teachers from implementing this practice.

© 2013 HERDSA

*Email: thi.pham1@uqconnect.edu.auThis article was originally published with errors. This version has been corrected. Please seeCorrigendum (http://dx.doi/org/10.1080/07294360.2013.867008).

Higher Education Research & Development, 2013Vol. 32, No. 6, 993–1006, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2013.806436

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

6:59

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Culturally, perceptions about the hierarchical teacher-learner relationship, whichoriginated from Confucianism, do not support the principle of teacher-equal-studentrelationship recommended by cooperative learning researchers (Phuong-Mai, 2008).Teachers find it hard to accept a pedagogical practice that puts them on a par withtheir students and detracts from their authority, and students find it difficult to thinkindependently, contradict teachers’ knowledge and draw their own conclusions.More commonly, teachers and students report that they are discouraged from tryingcooperative learning due to conflicts that often happen between low- and high-achie-vers (Thanh-Pham et al., 2011). High-ability learners complain about being heldback by their slower teammates, while low-ability learners complain about being dis-counted or ignored in group sessions. In fact, this is a common concern found inmany studies worldwide. Allan (1991) and Robinson (1990) stated that high-achieverswere not excited about participating in cooperative learning groups because they had tohelp, monitor and explain material to their low-achieving group-mates. Similarly, low-achievers were dissatisfied because higher status individuals were often more active, sodominated the group (Koh, Tan, Wang, Ee, & Liu, 2007; Slavin, 1996; Webb, 1982).

To solve this conflict, there is a need for strategies that can create opportunities forboth low- and high-achievers to effectively support and cooperate with each other. Thiswould subsequently help all types of students improve their academic achievementsbecause, as Vygotsky (1978) claims, the process of learning is constructive andmediated by social interactions. In detail, Vygotsky explains that when people commu-nicate with each other, they use language as a medium to relate to each other, to scaffoldeach others’ learning and to appropriate knowledge and understanding transactedthrough assisted performance so it becomes their own. Unfortunately, the literaturedoes not report any study that proposes such strategies. This study attempted toexamine if assessment designed as a group project can assist different-ability studentsto cooperate with each other effectively. If this happened, this type of assessment couldbe used as a strategy to assist teachers to solve conflicts and enhance cooperationamong different ability performers. This investigation was initiated by a paradox thatassessment has been widely agreed to influence how students determine learningapproaches (Biggs, 1993; Kember & Gow, 1994). More than 30 years ago, Eltonand Laurillard (1979) even claimed that ‘the quickest way to change student learningis to change the assessment system’ (p. 100). However, to promote cooperative learn-ing, researchers have often emphasized the employment of cooperative learning teach-ing instructions but have not placed enough emphasis on the role of assessment and itseffect. In Vietnam, although cooperative learning has been widely adopted, teachersusually only pay attention to the adaptation of group activities, disregarding instructionsfor designing proper assessments. Vietnamese college teachers often assess students viatraditional tests that rate students based on a single product at the end of the course,rather than being based on their performance during the entire learning process (Luu,2010). An assessment method widely used in social arts programs is the multiple-choice test. This assessment method is preferred by teachers and students because itallows a large number of testing items to be covered in a short time, gives studentslower anxiety and allows a higher success rate (Struyven, Dochy, Janssens, Schelfhout,& Gielen, 2006). However, a concern is raised about the association between the mul-tiple-choice examination and the employment of an individual learning approach. Thisconcern emerges because a multiple-choice test consists of a single-end product, whichonly requires a ‘right’ answer. To complete this task, Cohen (1994) said that groupmembers are not motivated to interact and solve problems as a group. Similarly,

994 Thanh Pham, T.H.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

6:59

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Vedder (1985) claimed that when students are fixated on finding the right answers, theyspend little time discussing together, thinking and talking about problem-solving strat-egies. Luu (2010) also criticizes such an assessment approach as it forms a certaindegree of individualism and competition among Vietnamese learners because learners,particularly high-ability ones, tend to retain knowledge for themselves and quietlycompete with others during their study for high achievement in exams.

These arguments propose that to encourage students to cooperate with each othereffectively, multiple-choice tests should be replaced by a more appropriate assessment.To provide empirical evidence on this issue, this study will exam how multiple-choiceand group project assessments impact cooperation among different-ability students. If agroup project is demonstrated to be able to enhance cooperation among different-abilitystudents effectively, it should be supported as a method to be more widely used at Viet-namese colleges. The study was mainly guided by the question: do different assessmentdemands bring about differences in students’ behaviours and interactions among differ-ent-ability students?

Methods

Participants

A total of 145 students from two classes from a university in Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam,participated in this quasi-experimental and post-test-only design study. The studentswere sophomore and taught by the same teacher on an introductory education courseduring a three-month semester. The ages of the participants ranged from 18 to 20years. The first class had 72 students and was used as the control class (70% femaleand 30% male). Based on their first-year academic records, 33 students were identifiedas low-achievers (GPA < 6.5), 39 were ranked as high-achievers (GPA≥ 6.5; the scorescale was from 1 to 10). The second class had 73 students and was used as the treatmentclass (65% female and 35% male). In this class, 30 students were low-achievers and 43were high-achievers.

Course structure

The two classes used the same syllabus, had the same reading materials, functionedunder the same course requirements and were introduced to the same cooperative learn-ing structure. Basically, the students were taught the interpersonal and small-groupskills needed to promote cooperation at the beginning of the semester. Then theywere grouped in mixed-ability groups that consisted of a balance of five low- to fivehigh-achievers. The students were required to help each other and facilitate eachother’s learning (i.e., listening to others, sharing ideas and information, respectingother students’ points of view and resolving conflict amicably) and they had toaccept responsibility for contributing to the group’s task. In effect, these groups wereestablished so that the essential components of successful cooperative group work asdefined by Johnson and Johnson (1990) were evident.

In addition, the teacher was asked to ensure that the cooperative group activitiesrequired the students to consider information they had previously learned and, througha series of probing questions, demonstrate that they were able to apply, analyze, syn-thesize and evaluate solutions to the task (Bloom, 1956). Many of the activities wereopen and discovery- based, where there were no correct answers and the students

Higher Education Research & Development 995

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

6:59

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

were required to cooperate as they discussed how to proceed as a group and share infor-mation (Cohen, 1994). While the teacher was able to determine the lesson plan, in orderto create opportunities for the students to work with each other, all 90-minute lessonswere, in general, designed in the same format: the first part of the lesson involved theteacher lecturing for 40–50 minutes, while the second part of the lesson allowed the stu-dents to work in groups to review the lesson and explore more information.

The only difference between the two classes was that in the control class, the stu-dents were informed that they would be assessed by just two multiple-choice tests atthe end of the semester. The students took the test as individuals first and then theytook the same test as a group immediately after they finished their individual test.The individual test made up 60% of the total grade and the group test made up 40%of the grade. To achieve high scores on both individual and group tests, groupmembers had to help each other to make sure that every member understood thelessons. This aimed to provide the students with the opportunity to optimize theirstudy by both making use of each other’s contributions in cooperative learninggroups and bringing into play their own strength in the individual test.

In contrast, in the treatment class, four weeks before the semester ended, the stu-dents were asked to work in their group on a group project that was assigned tothem by the teacher. To succeed in this project, the students needed to divide theproject into small parts, each of which was conducted by a member. Group memberswere encouraged to discuss with each other regularly to make sure everyone understoodwhat they were doing so that they could do their best work, which was then included inthe final project. At the end of the semester, group projects were presented to the classas a detailed and comprehensive powerpoint presentation. The final grade for eachstudent was a combination of 30% by peer assessment and 70% from the joint project.

Data collection methods

The study collected data from multiple sources, including a questionnaire, obser-vations, audiotapes and interviews. This technique is useful to enable confirmationor corroboration of each data type via triangulation and so provide richer detail(Rossman & Wilson, 1985).

Questionnaire

The questionnaire consisted of 11 items adapted from Gillies (2003). Its aim was to rep-resent the key elements of successful cooperation: positive interdependence, individualresponsibility, interpersonal communication, facilitation of each other’s efforts andregular processing of the group’s functioning in managing the task as well as itsmembers. It included items such as: ‘Group members gave each other time to talkand make suggestions’, ‘The opinion of others are valued’ and ‘Group membersoften do extra work outside’.

Observations

Observations were applied to three focus groups in each class. These focus groups wererandomly chosen at the beginning of the semester. The observation schedule wasadapted fromGillies (2003) to measure Behaviour States. The schedule has four Behav-iour State categories, including cooperative behaviour (task-oriented group behaviour,

996 Thanh Pham, T.H.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

6:59

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

such as listening and discussing), non-cooperative behaviour (competitive behavioursthat exclude others, such as opposition and criticism), individual on-task behaviour(work alone on task) and off-task behaviour (non-participation in group activitiesand not working individually). Momentary time sampling was used to record the occur-rence of behaviour within each category at 10-second intervals for group members overa period of 10 minutes. Only the behaviour that was observed at each 10-second inter-val for the student who was being observed was recorded. A research assistant wasemployed and trained to observe the focus groups together with the researcher. To guar-antee the validity of observations, each student was observed 30 times during the wholecourse by both the researcher and the assistant.

Audiotapes

Audiotaping was used to record the discussions of three focus groups in each class.Each recording session lasted for 30 minutes. The purpose of audiotaping was tohelp the researcher identify the verbal interactions of the students to determine howgroup members cooperated with each other. The system of interaction analysis orig-inally developed by Webb (1985) and modified by Gillies and Ashman (1996) wasused to compile information on student verbal interactions. The system included sixcategories: elaborations (i.e., provided detailed help), questions (i.e., tentative, challen-ging, open and closed questions), short responses (i.e., responses that are notelaborated), engages (i.e., statements or discussion that hold the attention of otherstudents), interrupts (i.e., negative disruption to the discussion) and directions(i.e., instructs others and scaffolds each other’s learning).

Interviews

A total of 15 students in each class were randomly selected to participate in interviewsorganized at the end of the semester. Each interview lasted for 20 to 30 minutes. Inter-view questions were aimed at clarifying any confusion or questions that emerged fromthe questionnaire survey and the observations. Example questions were ‘How do youlike working in your group?’ and ‘Are members in your group willing to help eachother? Why/Why not?’

Data analysis

Questionnaire

Participants were asked to circle their response on a five-point Likert type scale (stronglydisagree = 1; disagree = 2; undecided = 3; agree = 4; strongly agree = 5). Prior to analy-sis, all variables were examined for accuracy of data entry. Means and standard devi-ations were then examined on all variables on the questionnaire in both classes. Todetermine if there were differences in perceptions of the low- and high-achieverstoward cooperation in each class, assumptions of regressions were tested first. Theresults show that assumptions were met. Therefore, independent t-tests were conducted.

Observations. The researcher and the assistant compared their observations to checkinter-observer agreement. The result found that the agreement rate on all behaviourstates varied from 85 to 100%. Behaviour patterns were coded for frequency. The

Higher Education Research & Development 997

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

6:59

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

frequency was then converted into percentages to compare the results between the twoclasses.

Audiotapes. All audiotapes were fully transcribed by the assistant and rechecked by theresearcher. After the researcher and the assistant agreed on the corrections to the tran-scripts, verbal behaviours were identified by the researcher in six categories: elabor-ations, questions, short responses, engages, interrupts and directions.

Interviews. Content analysis procedures were applied (Patton, 1987). Raw data themesserved as the primary unit of analysis. A hierarchical inductive analysis was then con-ducted. The assistant grouped the original raw data themes into higher-order themesthat shared similar meaning, then gave a descriptive name to each theme. Theresearcher looked at the higher-order themes without the assigned names and describedthem. These descriptions were then compared with those of the assistant. There was ahigh degree of agreement. This provides some evidence of the validity and reliability ofthe grouping into themes. The higher order themes were then examined for similaritiesfor further combination as dimensions. When higher-order themes could not be mean-ingfully grouped into dimensions, they were carried forward independently. Even-tually, the original raw data themes (direct quotations from students’ comments)were re-examined to ensure that the meaning associated with raw data themes hadnot been misconstrued in the analytic process. The assignment of higher-orderthemes to dimensions was carried out jointly by the researcher and the assistant. Check-ing the original data was done separately by the researcher and the assistant and thendiscussed until consensus was reached.

Results

Questionnaire results

Scores that different-ability students in each class gave to those items that indicatedtheir perceptions toward cooperation are presented in Tables 1 and 2. For these tests,statistical significance was set at 0.01 and 0.05 levels.

An examination of Table 1 shows that there were significant differences in percep-tions between the different ability groups on three items: ‘Group members are free totalk and share ideas with each other’, ‘Everyone has a say in decisions’ and ‘Groupwork is enjoyable’, with p-value at 0.05 level. The significant difference was alsofound on the item ‘The opinions of others are valued’, with p-value at 0.01 level. Bycontrast, as shown in Table 2, significant difference in perceptions between the differ-ent-ability students was only found on the item ‘Group members are free to talk andshare ideas with each other’, with p-value at 0.05 level.

Surprisingly, the results show that both groups of low- and high-achievers in thetreatment class gave lower scores on four items ‘Group members gave each othertime to talk and make suggestions’, ‘Group members are free to talk and share ideaswith each other’, ‘Every member is encouraged to do best work’ and ‘Group work isenjoyable’ than those in the control class. An examination of Table 3 shows the differ-ences in perceptions on each item between two groups of low- and high-achievers in thetwo classes.

The results in Table 3 report that there were significant differences between two lowachiever groups on item ‘The opinions of others are valued’, with p-value at 0.01 level,

998 Thanh Pham, T.H.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

6:59

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

and between two high-achiever groups on item ‘Group members are free to talk andshare ideas with each other’, with p-value at 0.05 level. As explained above, althoughboth low- and high- achiever groups in the treatment class gave lower scores on fouritems – ‘Group members gave each other time to talk and make suggestions’,‘Group members are free to talk and share ideas with each other’, ‘Every member isencouraged to do best work’ and ‘Group work is enjoyable’ – than those in thecontrol class, significant difference was only found between two high-achievergroups on the item ‘Group members are free to talk and share ideas with eachother’. This possibly happened because when working on the group project, high-achie-vers needed to share more opportunities to talk and discuss with low-achievers. Theycould not dominate group conversation as they did when working on an assessmentas a multiple-choice test.

Observation results

The behaviour states of the focus groups in the two classes were investigated toexamine how different-ability students cooperated. Results of this investigation are pre-sented in Table 4.

An examination of Table 4 shows that both low- and high-achievers in the treatmentclass had a higher percentage of cooperative behaviours than those in the control class(42 compared to 66%, and 45 to 57%, respectively). In contrast, these students had a

Table 1. Differences in perceptions of the low- and high-achievers toward cooperation in thecontrol class.

Low-achieversn = 33

High-achieversn = 39

Perception M (SD) M (SD) t p

Group members gave each other time totalk and make suggestions.

3.51 (1.06) 3.70 (0.91) 0.57 .57

Group members treat each other withrespect.

3.12 (0.66) 3.24 (0.82) 2.23 .42

The opinions of others are valued. 2.76 (0.66) 3.27 (1.02) 2.11 .00**

Group members seek help from each otherbefore asking the teacher.

3.28 (0.74) 3.34 (0.69) 1.36 .18

Group members are free to talk and shareideas with each other.

3.83 (0.89) 4.13 (0.73) 2.40 .03*

Everyone has a say in decisions. 3.10 (0.66) 3.52 (0.82) 2.03 .04*

Group members give suggestions and helpwhen needed.

3.18 (0.74) 3.34 (0.69) 1.36 .17

Every member is encouraged to do bestwork.

3.20 (0.84) 3.34 (0.59) 2.36 .12

Group members often do extra workoutside.

3.04 (0.74) 3.12 (0.69) 1.26 .58

Group work is fun. 3.17 (0.90) 3.27 (0.82) 1.03 .38Group work is enjoyable. 3.09 (0.96) 3.54 (1.09) 2.40 .04*

Note: strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2; undecided = 3; agree = 4; strongly agree = 5; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

Higher Education Research & Development 999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

6:59

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Table 2. Differences in perceptions of the low- and high-achievers toward cooperation in thetreatment class.

Low-achieversn = 30

High-achieversn = 43

t pPerception M (SD) M (SD)

Group members gave each other timeto talk and make suggestions.

3.37 (1.00) 3.61 (0.98) 1.47 .37

Group members treat each other withrespect.

3.24 (0.66) 3.36 (0.82) 1.23 .12

The opinions of others are valued. 3.20 (0.74) 3.34 (0.69) 1.36 .18Group members seek help from each

other before asking the teacher.3.38 (1.24) 3.44 (0.99) 2.12 .71

Group members are free to talk andshare ideas with each other.

3.11 (1.17) 3.50 (1.09) 2.40 .05*

Everyone has a say in decisions. 3.34 (0.66) 3.52 (0.82) 2.03 .09Group members give suggestions and

help when needed.3.93 (0.88) 4.04 (0.69) 1.36 .07

Every member is encouraged to dobest work.

3.04 (0.86) 3.14 (0.59) 1.06 .59

Group members often do extra workoutside.

3.12 (0.75) 3.25 (0.69) 0.79 .43

Group work is fun. 3.28 (1.17) 3.43 (0.82) 1.03 .14Group work is enjoyable. 3.00 (0.91) 3.09 (1.09) 1.40 .32

Note: strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2; undecided = 3; agree = 4; strongly agree = 5; *p < 0.05;**p < 0.01.

Table 3. Differences in perceptions of two groups of low- and high-achievers towardcooperation in the two classes.

Low-achievers

High-achievers

Perception t p t p

Group members gave each other time to talk and make suggestions. 1.32 .17 1.38 .16Group members treat each other with respect. 2.02 .13 1.50 .23The opinions of others are valued. 2.01 .00 1.40 .18Group members seek help from each other before asking the teacher. 1.30 .50 2.32 .40Group members are free to talk and share ideas with each other. 1.99 .06 1.87 .04Everyone has a say in decisions. 1.43 .52 2.32 .45Group members give suggestions and help when needed. 1.27 .32 2.45 .42Every member is encouraged to do best work. 1.02 .12 1.10 .13Group members often do extra work outside. 1.52 .22 1.03 .25Group work is fun. 1.42 .39 1.70 .17Group work is enjoyable. 1.52 .32 1.08 .06

Note: strongly disagree = 1; disagree = 2; undecided = 3; agree = 4; strongly agree = 5; *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.

1000 Thanh Pham, T.H.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

6:59

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

lower percentage of non-cooperative, individual on-task and off-task behaviours thanthose in the control class. This finding indicates that in the treatment class both low-and high-achievers accomplished better cooperation than those in the control class.

Audiotape results

Audiotapes of the focus groups that were recorded in the two classes were coded. Thefrequency of each type of verbal interaction is presented in Table 5.

The results reported in Table 5 indicate that the students in the treatment class had ahigher frequency of elaboration and engaging interactions and a lower frequency ofquestions, short responses and interrupts than those students in the control class.These findings show that the students in the treatment class adopted more inclusivepractices by providing help to each other while reducing their exclusive actions,such as challenging and interrupting others.

Interview results

Interview results report that, in the control class, 39% of the interviewees stated thatthey liked working in their groups. The main reason given was that they had a goodopportunity to review knowledge. However, these students perceived that groupwork was time-consuming, especially when they had to tutor those who wereslower. Another 45% stated that they felt bored and lost confidence when workingwith others. The main reasons reported included: (1) better students went faster andthey did not always clearly explain information to the lower-achieving students, (2)the lower-achieving students felt uncomfortable when they expressed their ideas toothers because the higher-achieving students usually ‘jumped into their mouth’ (i.e.,

Table 4. Frequency of behaviour states of low- and high-achievers in the focus groups in the control andtreatment classes.

Cooperativebehaviours (%)

Non-cooperativebehaviours (%)

Individual on-taskbehaviours (%)

Individual off-taskbehaviours (%)

Students Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment Control Treatment

Low-achievers 42 66 16 9 28 18 14 7

High-achievers 45 57 18 10 28 21 12 9

Table 5. Frequency of verbal interactions in the focus groups in the control and treatmentclasses.

Variable Control class n = 72 Treatment class n = 73

Elaborations 32 42Questions 24 12Short responses 14 10Engages 24 31Interrupts 18 13Directions 24 24

Higher Education Research & Development 1001

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

6:59

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

demeaned them) when they got stuck and (3) the opinions of the lower-achieving stu-dents were not respected and group decisions were mostly made by only one or twomembers.

Responses from the treatment class report that the percentage of those students whoconfirmed that they were satisfied with their group work did not actually increase.However, there were more students who perceived that cooperative learning was inter-esting. Interestingly, the reasons given by the students to explain why they were notinterested in their groups were quite different from those collected in the controlclass. Specifically, no student complained that they were left out and devalued byothers. By contrast, the main themes that emerged from the students’ complaintswere unequal workloads, uncomfortable learning environments and uncertainty aboutothers’ products. For instance, one student stated:

I always appreciate contribution of all members. However, I have to say I feel safer if thecontribution comes from a good student. Whenever we receive products from a less ablemember, we need to spend time rechecking so it takes our time.

Interviews in the treatment class also disclosed some evidence demonstrating that thestudents weighted their group benefits as more important than their individual feelings.For instance, a number of the students in the control class expressed feeling uncomfor-table when they were corrected by friends (e.g., ‘Why do they always have to recheckmy work?’ and ‘I feel devalued when other members revise what I’ve done’). In con-trast, in the treatment class the students did not have such feelings when their partnerscorrected their writing before they were included in the joint essay. For instance, whenthe students were asked ‘How do you feel when your works were corrected by others?’One student said:

Of course, I want my part to be perfect but I have tried my best. I feel more comfortablewhen someone in the group helps revise it before we submit. I know they have to spendextra time.

In the treatment class, the increase in cooperation between group members was alsoshown via outside-class meetings. The researcher noticed that some groups organizedfieldtrips to find factual information for their essays. Some other groups met to rehearsebefore their official presentation.

Discussion

Although the questionnaire results obtained in this study did not clearly show that low-and high-ability students increased their cooperation when the types of assessmentchanged, the observation, audiotaping and interview results found in this studyreport that low- and high-achievers increased their cooperative behaviours and inter-actions when the assessment changed from a multiple-choice test to a group project.This may have occurred because when dealing with a multiple-choice assessment,the high-achievers might know that eventually they were the ones who made thefinal decisions in choosing the right answers for the group. Therefore, they mighthave decided that there was no need to listen to others and that they could go aheadwith using their own answers. As a result, low-achievers were ignored and had nochance to contribute their voice to the decision-making. This might be the reasonwhy the low-achievers in the control class gave low scores to two items related to

1002 Thanh Pham, T.H.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

6:59

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

‘value opinions’ and ‘have a say in making decision’. The independent t-test also showsthat there were significant differences in scores on these two items between low- andhigh-achievers in the control class. The interview findings provided an insight onthis issue when low-achievers said that others often ignored their opinions. Forinstance, they used phrases like ‘jumped into my mouth’ and ‘decided by themselves’.

There might be two reasons for low-achievers being ignored by high-achievers.First, high-achievers did not trust low-achievers’ contributions, and reacted byraising challenging questions or turning to do their own work. This hypothesis isquite plausible because when the observation results were reviewed, the percentageof non-cooperative and individual on-task behaviours of the high-achievers in thecontrol class was higher than when compared to those in the treatment class (18 com-pared to 10% for non-cooperative behaviours and 28 compared to 21% for individualon-task behaviours, respectively). The audiotape results also show that the number ofchallenging questions in the treatment group was significantly higher than that in thecontrol class (24 times compared to 12). Second, low-achievers might not riskasking for additional explanations because they were usually not encouraged to dothat (better students often ignored them). Consequently, these students might be putinto a ‘jobless’ situation where they had nothing to do but listen passively to othersor ‘fall to sleep’. The observation data supported this deduction when it disclosedthat in the control class, the percentage of off-task behaviour of the low achieverwas 14% but in the treatment class this was only 7%.

Supporting this point, it is interesting that Hooper and Hannafin (1988) claim high-achievers tend to be better at recall questions than application and problem-solvingquestions. This means that when the students worked on the multiple-choice questiontest, which mainly measured memorized knowledge (as the teacher participant of thisstudy explained, 80% of the test was to examine how much students memorized), thebetter students had more opportunities to decide and show their understanding thanwhen they engaged in undertaking the joint project. Therefore, the better studentsseemed more determined (e.g., using more short responses and fewer elaborateanswers) in discussions during the first half of the study than in conversations duringthe second half of the study (e.g., becoming more polite and using more engaginglanguage).

However, when the assessment changed to the group project, high-achievers mightlose the opportunity to make use of their ‘natural talent priorities’. They understood thatthe group product could only be completed when all group members made a contri-bution to complete the task, such as developing new ideas, reviewing lessons andtaking notes of discussions. This situation gave all group members a chance to contrib-ute, based on their capacity. For instance, bright students could develop new questionsto prompt group members to look for new knowledge and extra information that wasnot included in the text, whereas low-achievers could share the reviewing and recordingtasks. In doing so, low-achievers were given more than a chance to engage in complet-ing the group’s task. This might be why low-achievers reported that they were respectedmore and their ideas made more of an impression on other members when they workedon the project. Consequently, it was interesting to discover that there were no signifi-cant differences in scores on almost all items on the questionnaire in the treatment class.Observation results also report that in the treatment class, the low-achievers had a muchhigher percentage of cooperative behaviours and lower percentage of off-task beha-viours than those low-achievers in the control class (66 compared to 42%, and 7 com-pared to 14%, respectively). Similarly, the high-achievers in the treatment class had a

Higher Education Research & Development 1003

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

6:59

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

higher percentage of cooperative behaviours and lower percentage of the off-task beha-viours than those high-achievers in the control class (57 compared to 45%, and 12 com-pared to 9%, respectively).

The effective cooperation amongst all group members in the treatment class wasalso reflected in audiotape results. In this class, the students had a higher frequencyof positive verbal interactions (elaborations and engages) and a lower frequency ofnegative verbal interactions (questions, short responses and interrupts) than those inthe control class. Webb (1982) claims that when students know how to give elaborativeexplanation and direction to others, this means that they improve their understanding.Therefore, it seems that the students in the treatment class not only cooperated witheach other better, but also developed their cognition to a better level. In general, thedifference in verbal interactions performed by all types of students in both classesrevealed that group members in the treatment class were more understanding andhelpful to each other.

The final scores obtained in observations, audiotapes and interviews in this studyaccord with findings of many previous studies that found when students cooperatedwell in learning, they helped each other study better (Johnson et al., 1998; Messier,2005). This occurs because when cooperating with each other, students have the oppor-tunity to discuss the reasoning for their answer as well as receive immediate feedbackon their performance. The students are also provided with a chance to discuss eachother’s incorrect answers. This helps fill in their knowledge gaps and, therefore,develop a deeper understanding. This feedback is very important for learning,especially in large classes (Koh et al., 2007).

Conclusion

The results of this study show that when the students were provided with opportunitiesto cooperate and work with each other completing an assessment designed as a groupproject, they became more willing to help each other, share resources and encourageeach other to contribute ideas. Under such a test, the students, irrespective of ability,adopted the more inclusive practices of assisting each other and reduced their exclusivebehaviours. That was why almost all group members in the treatment class gave higherscores on their perceptions of ‘Group work is fun’. Gillies (2003) and Mulryan (1994)claim that these findings are identical to some of the characteristics of a good coopera-tive group where students work together, like each other, have fun, talk about the taskand work to complete it.

The study has proposed an assessment method that could increase cooperationamong different-ability students. This assessment created conditions that required stu-dents to share intellectual and material resources. According to Cohen (1994), theseconditions are essentially important to cooperation amongst students. To succeed inan assessment designed as a group project, group members usually had to dividegroup tasks, then assign different tasks to suitable members. In doing so, everymember had an opportunity to contribute and show others what they could do. Thisequal contribution satisfied every group member and made them more willing tocooperate with each other. The issue of workload division has emerged as acommon concern amongst students in both Western and non-Western cooperativelearning classes. Therefore, this strategy might be used to increase cooperation andreduce conflict between low- and high-achievers, not only in the context of Vietnam,but also in Western countries.

1004 Thanh Pham, T.H.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

6:59

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

However, the researcher acknowledges that perspectives and exemplary findingsled by this study are not definitive but, rather, suggestive and, hopefully, that theymay prove thought-provoking. There are two main reasons for this being the case.First, the findings were obtained from only one study that was conducted inVietnam. Therefore, findings found in this study may only correctly representVietnam and possibly other Asian countries that share similar cultural values. Thesefindings may not suitably represent those countries that are characterized by differentcultural patterns because, as Hofstede and Hofstede (2005) claim, students holdingdifferent cultural values do not share similar learning practices. Second, due to thescope of this research, observations, audiotapes and interviews were only conducteda limited number of times on several target groups. This restriction limits thegeneralizability of the findings. More studies should be conducted with larger popu-lations, in diverse contexts and using a more robust experimental model to investigatethe extent that findings of this study can be generalized.

ReferencesAllan, S.D. (1991). Ability grouping research reviews: What do they say about grouping and the

gifted? Educational Leadership, 48(6), 60–65.Biggs, J.B. (1993). What do inventories of students’ learning processes really measure? A theor-

etical review and clarification. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 3–19.Bloom, B. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain.

London: Longman.Cohen, G.E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups.

Review of Educational Research, 64(1), 1–35.Elton, L., & Laurillard, D. (1979). Trends in student learning. Studies in Higher Education, 4(1),

87–102.Gillies, R. (2003). The behaviours, interactions and perceptions of junior high school students

during small-group learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 137–147.Gillies, R. (2009). Evidence-based teaching: Strategies that promote learning. Rotterdam:

Sense.Gillies, R., & Ashman, A. (1996). Teaching collaborative skills to primary school children in

classroom-based work groups. Learning and Interaction, 6(2), 187–200.Hofstede, G., & Hofstede, J. (2005). Cultures and organization-software of the minds (2nd ed.).

New York: McGraw-Hill.Hooper, S., & Hannafin, M. (1988). Cooperative CBI: The effects of heterogeneous versus

homogeneous grouping on the learning of progressively complex concepts. Journal ofEducational Computing Research, 4(2), 413–424.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S. Sharan(Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 173–202). New York: Praeger.

Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R., & Smith, K. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: Whatevidence is there that it works? Change, 30(4), 26–35.

Kember, D., & Gow, L. (1994). Orientations to teaching and their effect on the quality of studentlearning. Journal of Higher Education, 65(1), 58–74.

Koh, C., Tan, O., Wang, J., Ee, J., & Liu, W. (2007). Perceptions of low-ability students ongroup project work and cooperative learning. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8(1), 89–99.

Luu, T.T. (2010). Infusing cooperative learning into an EFL classroom. English LanguageTeaching, 3(2), 64–75.

Messier, P.W. (2005). Traditional teaching strategies versus cooperative teaching strategies:Which can improve achievement scores in Chinese middle schools? US-China EducationReview, 2(1), 1–10.

Mulryan, C. (1994). Perceptions of intermediate students’ cooperative small-group work inmathematics. Journal of Educational Research, 87(1), 280–291.

Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in education. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Higher Education Research & Development 1005

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

6:59

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Phuong-Mai, N. (2008). Culture and cooperation: Cooperative learning in Asian Confucianheritage cultures – The case of Viet Nam. Utrecht, the Netherlands: IVLOS Institute ofEducation of Utrecht University.

Robinson, G.E. (1990). Synthesis of research on class size. Educational Leadership, 47(7),80–90.

Rossman, G.B., &Wilson, B.L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and quali-tative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review, 9(3), 627–643.

Slavin, R.E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, whatwe need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43–69.

Struyven, K., Dochy, F., Janssens, S., Schelfhout, W., & Gielen, S. (2006). On the dynamics ofstudents’ approaches to learning: The effects of the teaching/learning environment.Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 279–294.

Thanh-Pham, T.H., Gillies, R.M., & Renshaw, P. (2011). Designing strategies to make coopera-tive learning culturally appropriate in the Vietnamese context. Higher Education Review, 44(1), 43–57.

Vedder, P. (1985). Cooperative learning: A study on process and effects of cooperation betweenprimary school children. The Netherlands: Groningen: University of Groningen.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and society: The development of higher mental processes.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups: A research summery. InR. Slavin, S. Sharan, & S. Kagan (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn(pp. 5–15). New York: Plenum.

Webb, N.M. (1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of EducationalResearch, 52(3), 421–445.

1006 Thanh Pham, T.H.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f N

orth

Tex

as]

at 0

6:59

21

Nov

embe

r 20

14