Cooperative Group Learning in Social Studies and its Effect on Students’ Social Skills, Class Cohesion and learning Pre

1. Hypothesis: implementing collaborative group learning in the classroom is preferred by students as opposed to traditional instruction. In addition, it increases the social skills, class cohesion and content preferences of the students. Cooperative Group Learning in Social Studies and its Effect on Students’ Social Skills, Class Cohesion and learning Preferences CBSE 7202NET Linda Savdie Fall 2013 Research 2

2. Introduction: Statement of the Problem • Educators have always debated the most effective method of teaching. Included among the myriad of methods is cooperative group learning. Many researchers have investigated using this method to improve students' academic achievements with different content areas, grade levels, schools and countries (Cohen, 1994; Slavin, 1996). And while much research has found a significant increase in student's achievement while using these methods (Cohen, 1994; Jebson, 2012; Sharan & Sharan, 1989, Slavin, 1996), these results have not be replicated across the board. There have been studies that show no significant difference in achievement between collaborative group learning and traditional instructional methods (Cohen, 1994; Parveen, Mahmood, Mahmood, & Arif, 2011; Slavin, 1996). Also, much of the research has focused solely on student's academic achievement following the implementation of cooperative groups. If cooperative group learning is not done under favorable conditions, students' academic achievement does not vary significantly than when taught using a traditional instructional method (Cohen, 1996; Parveen, et al. 2011; Slavin 1996). This study seeks to investigate the non-academic benefits to cooperative group work. The benefits being investigated include: preference for the content area being taught using this method, a development of social skills, a preference for working in groups, and better class cohesion. The researcher is seeking to find evidence that cooperative group learning is a superior method than traditional instructional methods.

3. INTRODUCTION: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE • Johnson and Johnson (1990) state that effectively implemented cooperative group work has both short term and long term benefits. The short term benefits are greater learning, retention, and critical thinking abilities. The long term outcomes are greater employability and career success. • Schul (2011) states that cooperative group learning has the "ability to aid teachers not only with teaching subject matter but also teaching social skills and dispositions that pervade the school curriculum (p. 88).“ • A study was done to compare the effects of cooperative group learning versus traditional learning on learning outcomes of students studying English as a foreign language in Saudi Arabia.. They found that the experimental group (cooperative learning group) performed significantly better on the post-test designed to measure their knowledge of English grammar (Alghamdi & Gillies, 2013).

4. INTRODUCTION: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE • One study that focused on cooperative group learning's effects on achievement in social studies was conducted by Parveen et al. (2011). They studied the academic achievement of 8th grade students in social studies after the implementation of cooperative group learning. They found no significant difference in the achievement of students taught using cooperative group learning methods than those who were taught using a traditional instructional method. • Shachar and Sharan (1994) conducted a study in Israel that studied Sharan's group investigation method's effect on the verbal communication, social interaction, and achievement of students from ethnically diverse backgrounds.. They found that in a whole-class method of instruction students with a Western background tended to dominate the discussion. With the group investigation method, both Middle Eastern and Western students took an equal amount of turns talking. In addition, they found that all students in the group investigation classes made more cooperative statements to Middle Eastern students than in the whole class instruction classes. Achievement was significantly higher for those thought using the group investigation method.

5. INTRODUCTION: STATEMENT OF THE HYPOTHESIS • The purpose of this study is to investigate whether the implementation of cooperative learning has a positive effect on students' social skills, class cohesion, preference for group work and content preferences. The study also seeks to investigate what social conditions contribute to favorable cooperative learning outcomes. In order to do so, the researcher will look for correlations within the dependent variables and between the dependent variables and family life and the number of friends a student has within the class. It is expected a correlation will be found between students who have a rich family life, and/or report having more friends and their score on the social skills and preference for group work scales.

6. Methods: Participants and Instruments • Participants The participants are 21 third grade students at a yeshiva located in Brooklyn, New York. They are all males aged eight to nine years old who practice orthodox Judaism. They come from an affluent Sephardic Jewish community that has emigrated to the United States from Middle Eastern countries (Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt) within the last century. They all come two parent intact families with an average family size of six (including parents). • Instruments A self-created survey was utilized for the pre- and post-tests. The survey consisted of five point Likert-type scale questions used to measure the following variables: family life, preference for social studies, perceived class cohesion, social skills, preference for group work, and amount of friends a student has within the class. The reliability and validity of the survey is unknown. See appendix A.

7. Methods: Experimental Design • Pre-experimental design with one group that receives treatment and no control group. • One-group pretest - posttest design (OXO). • No random sampling. • The sample, (N = 21) third grade boys from a Brooklyn Yeshivah, have been given a survey (pretest- O) to fill out prior to the implementation of collaborative group projects (treatment – X). After the implementation of the group projects, students took the same survey to measure any changes (posttest- O).

8. Rationale for Research Design • Due to limitations in time and the length of the social studies units, only two tests could be administered with the treatment implemented after the first test. • Due to limitations in access to students, small size of the school, and the presence of gender separated classes, only one class could be utilized. This prevented the use of a larger sample and/or control group.

9. Internal Threats to Validity • History: It is likely that an event can occur that affects the results of the test due to the sample consisting of 21 boys who live in the same area, attend the same school and have known each other for a while. • Maturation: The sample consists entirely of young boys. Children change and mature more rapidly than adults and that can affect the results of the tests. • Pre-test sensitization: After administering a pretest, students will already be exposed to the content of the research. This may affect the results of the posttest. • Instrumentation: The validity of the survey created for this study is unknown. • Statistical regression of the mean: may affect the posttest if a student scores very high or very low on any of the scales. Statistically, that student will most likely retest at score that is closer than the mean.

10. External Threats to Validity • Selection–treatment interaction: because the sample consists of 22 students with virtually identical demographics, the generalizability of research is very limited. • Pretest treatment: The students may react differently to the treatment because of the pretest. • Novelty effect: the independent variable, cooperative group projects, is not something that is utilized often in this third grade classroom.

11. Methods: Procedure • After receiving signed consent forms from the principal and the teacher, the researcher sent home consent forms with the 22 students in the class. The researcher received signed consent from the parents of 21 students and those students make up the sample. • After the completion of one social studies unit taught in a traditional instructional method, the pre-test survey was distributed to the students. A cooperative group learning social studies unit was implemented. Students were not taught any social skills so as not to influence the dependent variable of social skills. Students were split up into five groups consisting of four to five students each. Each group was split up heterogeneously. After two weeks of cooperative group learning, the same survey was given as a post-test.

12. Results The data was collected and entered into Microsoft Office Excel 2007 to be analyzed. No significant difference between the means were found for perceived class cohesion, social skills, or amount of friends reported when comparing the pre- and post-test scores. The mean for preference for social studies increased from 17 to 20 after the implementation The mean for preference for group work increased from 12.7 to 14.2 after the implementation.

13. Data & AnalysisPosttest & Pretest Scores

14. Posttest Correlations It was expected that a correlation would be found between students with a rich family life and with a lot of friends and preference for group work and social skill scale scores. Pearson's r correlation was calculated using Microsoft Office Excel 2007. No correlations were found between a rich family life and preference for group work and between rich family life and social skills scale scores, rxy = .01 and rxy = .048, respectively. Weak positive correlations were found between amount of friends and preference for group work and between amount of friends and social skill scale scores, rxy = .23 and rxy = .24, respectively.

15. Posttest Correlations Astrong negative correlation was found between rich family life and a preference for social studies, rxy = -.472. A strong positive correlation was found between preference for social studies and perceived class cohesion rxy = .466.

16. Posttest Correlations A strong positive correlation was found between preference for social studies and preference for group work, rxy = .422. A moderate positive correlation was found between perceived class cohesion and preference for group work, rxy = .388.

17. Discussion • According to the results, the implementation of cooperative group learning did not affect students' social skills, or perceived class cohesion. However, their preference for social studies as a content area, and preference for group work did increase after the implementation of cooperative group learning. • Preference for social studies had a moderate to strong positive correlation with every variable except for family life (with which it had a strong negative correlation.) Preference for group work had a weak to moderate positive correlation with every variable except for family life. • There was also a strong correlation on the post-test between a preference for social studies and preference for group work. This indicates that students who enjoy working cooperatively also enjoy learning social studies. The mean of those two variables increased after the implementation, indicating that students enjoy cooperative group work more than traditional instructional methods and therefore enjoy social studies more due to the content being taught using a cooperative learning method. • Tying social studies instruction to cooperative learning tied students' enjoyment of social studies to their sociability in school. In fact their social interactions with their families was negatively correlated to their preference for social studies, but all in-school social variables were correlated positively to their preference for social studies. These results correspond with the studies done by Ellison et al. (2005); Johnson (2006); and Johnson and Engelhard (1991), which found that most students prefer cooperative learning environments as opposed to individualistic and competitive learning environments.

18. Discussion: Implications An important implication of this research is that researchers should further investigate to what degree cooperative group learning affects variables other than academic achievement; In particular how it affects students' content preferences. Could students be influenced to prefer certain content areas by changing the learning structure to one of cooperative learning? Researchers could conduct further research to see if the results could be replicated with other content areas. Perhaps, incorporating cooperative learning environments could cultivate students' interests in under-served educational fields. The long-term effects of incorporating cooperative learning could be studied. Students' content preferences may influence their choice of career in the long run. Furthermore, the long term effect of cooperative learning on students' social skills could be investigated. Researchers could investigate the longtime repercussions of differing learning environments. How might it affect the students as they enter the work force? How might it affect their career success? Perhaps, those who have been taught in cooperative learning environments experience more success in the corporate world. Perhaps those that have been taught in competitive learning environments experience more success in the business world. An extensive study on the long term effects of cooperative learning has not been undertaken. To truly measure the effectiveness of cooperative learning, the real world implications should be investigated.

19. References Alghamdi, R., & Gillies, R. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning in comparison to traditional learning (small groups) on EFL learners' outcomes when learning English as a foreign language. Asian Social Science, 9(13), 19-27. Aronson, E. (n.d). History of the jigsaw. Retrieved from http://www.jigsaw.org/history.htm. Caprino, K. (2012, April). What you don't know will hurt you: The top 8 skills professionals need to master. Forbes.com. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/kathycaprino/2012/04/27/what-you-dont-know-will-hurt-you-the-top-8-skills-professionals-need-to-master/. Cohen, E.G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1),1-35. Dewey, J. (1897) My pedagogic creed. School Journal, 54, 77-80. Ellison, C.M., Boykin, A.W., Tyler, K.M., & Dillihunt, M.L. (2005). Examining classroom learning preferences amount elementary school students. Social Behavior and Personality, 33(7), 699-708. Goodwin, M.W. (1999). Cooperative learning and social skills: What skills to teach and how to teach them. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35(1), 22-33. Hung, C.M., Hwang G.J., & Huang, I. (2011) A project-based digital storytelling approach for improving students' learning motivation, problem-solving competence and learning achievement. Education Technology & Society, 15(4), 368-379. Jebsom, S.R. (2012). Impact of cooperative learning approach on senior secondary school students performance in mathematics. Ife PsychologIA 20(2), 107-112. Johnson, C., & Engelhard, E. Jr. (1991). Gender, academic achievement, and [references for cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning among African-American adolescents. The Journal of Psychology 126(4), 385-392. Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1990, January). Social skills for successful group work. Educational Leadership. 29-33. Johnson, L.M. (2006). Elementary school students' learning preferences and the classroom learning environment: Implications for educational practice and policy. Journal of Negro Education, 75(3), 506-519

20. References Kagan, S. (1990, January). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 12-15. Lee H.J., & Lim, C. (2012). Peer evaluation in blended team project-based learning: What do students find important? Education Technology &Society 15(4), 214-224. Nagel, P. (2007). Moving beyond lecture: Cooperative learning and the secondary social studies classroom. Education, 128(3), 363-368. Parveen, Q., Mahmood, S.T., Mahmood, A., & Arif, M. (2011). Effect of cooperative learning on academic achievement of 8th grade student in the subject of social studies. International Journal of Academic Research 3(1), 950-954. Prater, M.A., Bruhl, S. & Serna, L.A. (1998). Acquiring social skills through cooperative learning and teacher-directed instruction. Remedial and Special Education 19(3), 160-172. Reese, S. (2009, April). The jigsaw classroom. Techniques, 8-9. Rutherford, R.B. Jr., Mathur, S.R., & Quinn, M.M. (1998). Promoting social communication skills through cooperative learning and direct instruction. Education & Treatment of Children, 21(3), 354-370. Schul, J.E. (2011). Revisiting an old friend: The practice and promise of cooperative learning for the twenty-first century. The Social Studies, 102, 88-93 Shachar, H., & Sharan, S. (1994). Talking, relating and achieving: Effects of cooperative learning and whole-class instruction. Cognition and Instruction 12(4), 313-353. Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1990, January). Group investigation expands cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 17-21 Stefanou, C., Stolk, J.D., Prince, M., Chen, J.C., & Lord, S.M. (2013). Self regulation and autonomy in problem- and project-based learning environments. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14(2), 109-122. Slavin, R.E. (1996) Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Education Psychology, 21, 43- 69. Wang, M. (2012). Effects of cooperative learning on achievement motivation of female university students. Asian Social Science, 8(15), 108- 114.