The effects of Cooperative learning on fourth-grade students math test scores

1. The effects of Cooperative learning on fourth-grade students math test scores Beramiesha ThompsonEd. 703.22 – Final Action Research Project SPRING 2010

2. TABLE OF CONTENTS • Introduction • Statement of Problem • Literature Review • Hypothesis • Methods • Participants (N) • Instruments • Experimental Design • Procedure • Results • Discussion • Implications • Threats to Internal and External Validity • References

3. Statement of the Problem • Students have difficulty retaining mathematical concepts taught in the classroom, which negatively affects their mathematics achievement level. • Mathematics is instructed through the use of textbooks which are teacher-led. • Teachers do not consistently use cooperative learning with students during math instruction to promote math retention and achievement. • Positive correlation between the use of cooperative learning grouping in mathematics instruction, and it’s enhancement of students learning experience and their ability to excel in mathematics.

4. Literature review PROS • Effective and positive teacher and student engagement impacts retention and achievement in math. (Fredricks, Blumenfeld, & Paris 2004; Chiu, 2004) • Teachers demonstration of respect for students and positive social relations with students improves students achievement. (Wade, 1995) • Teacher’s demonstration of empathy impacts their relationships with students and their motivation. (Murdock & Miller , 2003) • Peer grouping impacts student cognitive and motivation skills in math. (Nichols & White, 2001; Mueller & Fleming, 2001) • Learning-oriented classroom impacts student learning. (Marshall, 1987)

5. Literature Review Pros • Classroom structure influences student goal orientation. (Self- Brown & Matthews, 2003) • Positive grouping enhances intrinsic motivation. (Battistich, Solomon, & Delucchi,1993) • Students respond well to cooperative learning grouping and tangible rewards. (Haywood, Kuespert, Madecky, & Nor, 2008) • Social approval and reinforcement impact students achievement and behavior. (Polirstok & Gottlieb, 2006) • Quality of individual-based reinforcement. (Wilson-Saddler,1997) • Social environmental factors impact student motivation and engagement. (Ryan & Patrick, 2001) • Cooperative learning and mastery learning strategies for effective student learning. (Guskey, 1990)

6. Literature Review cons • Few efficient and objective measuring tools. (Marshall, 1987) • Difficult to identify effective strategies that meet all students needs. (Taylor & Adelman,1999) • Bureaucracy i.e.. Curriculum, school personnel, administrators • Fails to promote higher leveling thinking. (Randall, 1999) • Smaller vs. larger grouping size. (Slavin,1981) • Prior research on student’s motivation and academic achievement has failed to examine math as a social construct. (Middleton & Spanias, 1999) • Peer grouping and cooperative learning has no affect on student achievement. (Gabrielle & Montecinos, 2001) Motivation and Classroom Learning www.edb.utexas.edu/borich/pdfdocs/chapter7.pdf

7. Hypothesis HR: Implementing cooperative learning in the classroom over a 6 week period, will improve the math tests scores of 25 urban-area fourth-grade students from PS-X.

8. Methodsparticipants • The participants (N) are 25 fourth-grade students from one general education classroom in PS-X. There are 9 boys and 16 girls in the classroom. • PS-X is located in an urban area. • The students are from diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural backgrounds (Latin-American, African-American). • The students vary in age: 9, 10, 11, and 12 • A few students are repeating 4th grade

9. METHODSINSTRUMENTS • School Consent • Parental Consent • Pre and PostTest Likert Scale Surveys • Surveys used to assess students feelings about math, working alone, and working in groups • Teacher Survey • Pre and Post Math Tests - Mathematics Progress Indicator • Pre-test scores were used to assess students math test scores prior to the intervention of cooperative learning during math instruction. • Post-test scores were used to assess the students math test scores upon implementation of the intervention of cooperative learning during math instruction.

10. MethodsResearch design Pre-Experimental Design A single group is pre-tested (O), exposed to a treatment (X), and post-tested (O) Symbolic Design: O X O

11. Methodsprocedure • Parent consent forms given out in March 2010 • Teacher and students pretest/intervention survey were completed March 2010 • Research conducted between March 2010 and May 2010 in one 4th grade classroom of 25 students. • Beginning April 2010 and ending May 2010, over a six week time-frame, cooperative learning was implemented during math instruction once a week. • Students’ math test scores on Mathematics Progress Indicative were assessed (pretest) April 2010 and (posttest) May 2010.

12. RESULTS:pre test/post test math scores

13. resultsaverage of pre-test & post test scores

14. resultspost-test scores • Question 10: I was able to understand the math concepts better with help from my group members. 1-never 2-rarely 3-sometimes 4-usually 5-always (1) (2) (3-4) Correlation coefficient (rxy)= 0.345396 *There is no correlation between students understanding of math concepts while working in cooperative grouping and their math posttest scores.

15. discussion • The study’s finding support Piaget’s socio-cognitive theory (Biehler and Snowman, 1997) • Cooperative learning as a motivational strategy promotes student-centered learning and increases student learning goals, active engagement and communication. (Slavin, 1981; Self-Brown & Mathews, 2003); Meng, 2005; Marshall, 1999 ; Ryan and Patrick, 2001; Chiu, 2004; Taylor and Adelman, 1999) • Findings support cooperative learning use increases students’ math test scores (pre and post test); however, there is not a clear relationship between cooperative learning and student achievement that can be applied to the population (Gabrielle & Montecinos, 2001; Nicholas and White, 2001;Randall, 1999)

16. implicatons • Examine more in depth the academic, cultural, social differences of the students in reference to mathematics • A larger sample size • A long-term study (6 months or more) • Further research is needed to develop tools to measure student retention of math concepts.

17. Threats tovalidity INTERNAL • History • Maturation • Testing/Pre-test Sensitization • Instrumentation • Mortality • Selection-Maturation Interaction EXTERNAL • Generalizable Conditions • Pre-test Treatment • Selection-Treatment Interaction • Specificity of Variable • Confounding Variables • Treatment Diffusions • Experimenter Effects •  Reactive Arrangements/ Participant effects a- Hawthorne Effect

18. REFERENCES Corno, L. & Mandinach, E.B. (1983). Using existing classroom data to explore relationships in a theoretical model of academic motivation. Journal of Educational Research, 77 (1),33-42. Retrieved September 29, 2009, from www.eric.edu. Sideridis, G., Mouzaki, A., Simos, P., Protopapas, A. (2006). Classification of students with reading comprehension difficulties: The role of motivation, affect, and psychopathology. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29 (3),159-80. Retrieved September 29, 2009, from http://www.jstor.org. Taylor, L.; & Adelman, H. (1999). Personalizing classroom instruction to account for motivational and developmental differences. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 255-276. Retrieved October 1, 2009 from www.jstor.org. Mueller, A. & Fleming, T. (2001). Cooperative learning: Listening to how children work at school. The Journal of Educational Research, 94 (5). Retrieved October 17, 2009, from www.eric.ed.gov Abu, R., Pendidikan, J., Pendidikan, F.P. (1997). The effects of cooperative learning methods on achievement, retention, and attitudes of home economics students in North Carolina. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 13 (2). Retrieved October 19, 2009, from http://www.scholar.lib.vt.edu. Zakaria, E., & Iksan, Z. (2006). Promoting cooperative learning in science and mathematics education: A Malaysian perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science, & Technology Education, 3(1). Retrieved October 19, 2009, from www.jstor.org Middleton, J., & Spanias, P. (1999). Motivation for achievement in mathematics: Findings, generalizations and criticisms of the research. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 30 (1), 65-88. Retrieved October 19, 2009, from www.jstor.org Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38 (2), 67-73. Retrieved November 12, 2009 from www.jstor.org. Chiu, M.M. (2004). Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learning: How to improve student problem-solving and time on-task. American Educational Research Journal, 41 (2), 365-399. Retrieved October 19, 2009, from www.jstor.org Gabrielle, A.J., & Montecinos, C. (2001). Collaborating with a skilled peer: The influence of achievement goals and perceptions of partners' competence on the participation and learning of low-achieving students . The Journal of Experimental Education, 69 (2), 152-178. Retrieved October 29, 2009, from www.jstor.org. Gilles, R. 2002. The residual effects of cooperative-learning experiences: A two-year follow up. The Journal of Educational Research, 96 (1), 15-20. Retrieved October 29, 2009, from www.jstor.org. Nichols, J., & White, J. (2001). Impact of peer networks on achievement of high school algebra students. The Journal of Educational Research, 94 (5) 267-273. Retrieved October 29, 2009, from www.jstor.org.

19. references Self-Brown, S., & Matthews, S. (2003). Effects of classroom structure on student achievement goal orientation. The Journal for Educational Research, 97 (2). Retrieved October 5, 2009, from www.jstor.org. Marshall, H. (1987). Motivational strategies of three fifth-grade teachers. The Elementary School Journal, 88 (2), 134-150. Retrieved October 5, 2009, from www.jstor.org. Ryan, A., & Patrick, H. (2001). The classroom social environment and changes in adolescent’s motivation and engagement during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 38 (2),437-460. Retrieved October 5, 2009, from www.jstor.org Murdock, T., & Miller, A. (2003). Teachers as sources of middle school students motivational identity: Variable-centered and person-centered analytic approaches. The Elementary School Journal, 103 (4), 383-399. Retrieved October 5, 2009, from the www.jstor.org. Wade, R. (1995). Encouraging student initiative in a fourth-grade classroom. TheElementary School Journal, 95, (4), 339-354. Retrieved October 5, 2009, from www.jstor.org . Haywood, J., Kuespert, S., Madecky, D., Nor, A. (2008). Increasing elementary and high school student motivation through the use of extrinsic and intrinsic rewards. Retrieved September 14, 2009, from www.eric.edu. Wilson-Saddler, D. (1997). Using effective praise to produce positive results in the classroom. Teaching and Change, Vol. 4(4),338-357. Retrieved September 14, 2009, from www.eric.edu Polirstok, S., & Gottlieb, J. (2006). The impact of positive behavior intervention training for teachers on referrals rates for misbehavior, special education evaluation, and student reading achievement in the elementary grades. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 2 (3), 354-361. Retrieved September 13, 2009, from www.eric.edu. Guskey, T. (1990). Cooperative mastery learning strategies. The Elementary School Journal, 91 (1), 33-42. Retrieved October 29, 2009, from www.jstor.org. Battistich, V. Solomon, D., Delucchi, K. (1993). Interaction processes and student outcomes in cooperative learning groups. The Elementary School Journal, 94 (1), 19-32. Retrieved November 5, 2009 from www.jstor.org. Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., Paris, A. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74 (1), 59-109. Retrieved November 12, 2009 from www.jstor.org. Vaughn, W. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on achievement and attitude among students of color. The Journal of Educational Research, 95 (6), 359-364. Retrieved November 12, 2009 from www.jstor.org. Slavin, R. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50 (2), 315-342. Retrieved October 5, 2009 from www.jstor.org.