EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING ON ACADEMIC

PERFORMANCE OF STUDENT IN DISTRICT OKARA

Researcher Name Supervisor Name

KHURAM SHAHZAD HAFSA DASTGIR

ALLAMA IQBAL OPEN UNIVERSITY ISLAMABAD

20 – 01 - 2020
EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING ON ACADEMIC

PERFORMANCE OF STUDENT IN DISTRICT OKARA

KHURAM SHSHZAD

Roll No. BM600543

ii
 Submitted In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
B.Ed. (1.5 Year) Program in Educational Technology and Evaluation
At Department of Early Childhood Education and Elementary Teacher Education
Faculty of Education
Allama Iqbal Open University,
Islamabad
ANMOL AKRAM
20 – 01 - 2020

APPROVAL FORM

The research project attached hereto, titled” Effect of cooperative learning on academic

performance of student in district Okara” proposed and submitted by KHURAM

SHZAHZAD Roll No. BM600543 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

B.Ed. (1.5 year) (Educational Technology and Evaluation) is hereby accepted.

SUPERVISOR: _____________________

HAFSA DASTAGIR

Evaluator: ________________________

iii
Dated: 20 – 01 - 2020

DECLARATION

I KHURAM SHAHZAD son of Muhammad SIDDIQUE Roll No. BM600543, Registration:

17POA01456. A student of B.Ed. (1.5 year) program (Educational Technology and Evaluation)

at Allama Iqbal Open University do hereby solemnly declare that the research project entitled

“Effect of cooperative learning on academic performance of student in district Okara” submitted

by me in partial fulfillment of B. Ed. (1.5 year) program, is my original work, and has not been

submitted or published earlier. I also solemnly declare that it shall not, in future, be submitted by

me for obtaining any other degree from this or any other university or institution.

I also understand that if evidence of plagiarism is found in my thesis/dissertation at any stage,

even after the award of a degree, the work may be cancelled and the degree revoked.

iv
 __________________

Date: 20 – 01 - 2020 KHURAM SHAHZAD

Research Project Submission Approval Form

Research Project entitled “Effect OF Cooperative Learning on Academic Performance of Student

in District Okara “submitted by KHURAM SHAHZAD Roll No. BM600543 Registration No.

17POA05646. Program has been read by me and has been found to be satisfactory regarding its

quality, content, language, format, citations, bibliographic style, and consistency, and thus fulfills

the qualitative requirements of this study. It is ready for submission to Allama Iqbal Open

University for evaluation.

______________________

Date: 20-01-2020 HAFSA DASTAGIR

v
vi
ABSTRACT
vii
The present study investigated and compared the effect of cooperative learning method and the

whole class traditional method in developing English language of the students of 7th class. The

students under control conditions were taught through whole class traditional method and the

students in experiment groups were taught through cooperative learning method. The STAD

(Student Teams Achievement Divisions) model of cooperative learning was used in this study.

Four intact (as it is) groups were taken from boys and girls schools for this study. A pre-test post

test control group design was applied. The independent sample t-test procedures were used to

compare the control and experimental groups on pre-test and post test scores of achievement test.

The results of the study revealed no statistical significance difference on pre-test scores of both

the groups which means that the groups were alike in their achievement in English grammar

before the experiment whereas the experimental classes outperformed the control classes when

compared on post test scores after the experiment. The results based on post test scores showed

that the STAD model of cooperative learning had significant effect on the achievement of

students, both male and female, in learning English grammar at Elementary level. The effect size

was also calculated to determine the magnitude of difference between achievements of

experimental and control groups which showed high increase in the achievement of treatment

groups.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION......................................................................................1
1.1 Introduction.......................................................................................................................1
viii
 1.2 Research Question.............................................................................................................4
1.3 Significance of the study...................................................................................................4
2. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................8
3. CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY....................................................................................25
3.1 Research Design..............................................................................................................25
3.2 Procedures.......................................................................................................................25
3.3 Sample.............................................................................................................................26
3.4 Formation of teams.........................................................................................................26
3.5 Research Instrument........................................................................................................27
3.6 Finding............................................................................................................................28
3.6.1 TABLE 1…………………………………………………………………………28
3.6.2 TABLE 2…………………………………………………………………………29
3.6.3 TABLE 3…………………………………………………………………………30
4. CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE STUDY.....................................................................31
4.1 Results and discussions....................31
5. CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................35
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................36

ix
1. CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction

The present study investigated and compared the effect of cooperative

learning method and the whole class traditional method in developing English

language of the students of 5th class. The students under control conditions were

taught through whole class traditional method and the students in experiment groups

were taught through cooperative learning method. The STAD (Student Teams

Achievement Divisions) model of cooperative learning was used in this study. Four

intact (as it is) groups were taken from boys and girls schools for this study. A pre-test

post test control group design was applied. The independent sample t-test procedures

were used to compare the control and experimental groups on pre-test and post test

scores of achievement test. The results of the study revealed no statistical significance

difference on pre-test scores of both the groups which means that the groups were

alike in their achievement in English grammar before the experiment whereas the

experimental classes outperformed the control classes when compared on post test

scores after the experiment. The results based on post test scores showed that the

STAD model of cooperative learning had significant effect on the achievement of

students, both male and female, in learning English grammar at Elementary level. The

effect size was also calculated to determine the magnitude of difference between

achievements of experimental and control groups which showed high increase in the

achievement of treatment groups.

Public scrutiny of primary education in the Pakistan has increased

substantially over the past few years, with growing concern that critical thinking

skills, such as the analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of ideas are in decline on

primary schools. Critical thinking generally leads to well-informed, more reasoned

1
decision making. Without critical thinking skills, society members are less equipped.

The report indicated that a growing number of primary school lacked some of the

basic skills. Therefore, educators may help improve the value of primary education to

society by helping students develop critical thinking skills, including the development

of need for cognition—a measure of a person’s need to engage in cognitive activities.

If faculty can help students enjoy the thinking process, students are more likely to

enjoy cognitive activities throughout their lives, which may contribute to a stronger

society. An individual who enjoys thinking will likely be a more informed voter and

active participant in public discourse. Recent findings regarding critical thinking in

primary education should encourage faculty to embrace teaching strategies that help

primary education is critical to our society’s long-term success. Collaboration among

develop student interest in cognitive activities. However, little research exists that

connects students’ cognitive development with educational delivery strategies such as

active or collaborative learning. This thesis addresses this gap and demonstrates how

using cooperative learning strategies may assist students in developing need for

cognition. The current shift toward the commoditization of primary education and the

Concern for students’ lack of cognitive growth pose significant threats to the current

structure primary education. If educators help students to enjoy the learning process,

students may be more prone to continue learning and engaging in critical thinking

throughout their lives. Collaborative and active learning reinforce the social,

cooperative nature of learning, which often makes learning more enjoyable .These

values help students understand the importance of social responsibility while

developing key intellectual skills such as communication, analysis, and problem

solving. As such, a strong students is sometimes referred to as either Cooperative or

2
collaborative learning. Cooperative and collaborative techniques seek to engage

students in the learning process.

This dissertation is studies to examine the impact of cooperative

learning on the development of need for cognition among primary students. The

study’s results may help guide faculty and administrators in choosing appropriate

instructional styles that have a long-term, positive impact on cognitive development.

The results may provide a pathway to help students gain critical thinking skills,

Cooperative learning is a highly structured group method requiring interdependence

among students (Slavin, 1980). Collaborative learning is a broader term for students

working together to achieve learning outcomes (Bruffee, 1999). In both cooperative

and collaborative learning, students engage with other classmates, potentially leading

to more cognitive processing. Although both methods encourage student

collaboration, cooperative learning’s structured nature demands more consistent

engagement among students than collaborative learning. Some confusion exists within

the literature regarding the terminology associated with cooperative learning. In some

cases, researchers have used the terms cooperative and collaborative learning

interchangeably. Others consider cooperative learning a subset of collaborative

learning. Similarly, I use the term cooperative learning as a blend between cooperative

and collaborative learning approaches. Cooperative learning refers to highly

structured classroom experiences involving students teaching each other and working

together on projects outside of class. Cooperative learning indicates more

intentionally designed group activities as opposed to the less structured collaborative

learning (Bruffee, 1999).The study’s purpose is to examine the relationship between

cooperative learning and the development of need for cognition among primary

students. This is the first study I know that uses longitudinal data to link directly

3
cognitive gains in primary students with the application of cooperative or

collaborative learning.

1.2 Research Question

The following research questions were addressed in this study.

 Is there any significant difference in English grammar achievement scores of

the students taught through cooperative learning and those taught by whole

class traditional method?

2. Is there any significant difference in English grammar achievement scores of the

male students taught through cooperative learning and those taught by whole

class traditional method?

3. Is there any significant difference in English grammar achievement scores of the

female students taught through cooperative learning and those taught by whole

class traditional method?

1.3 Significance of the Study

Cooperative learning is a tested and effective teaching tool, but recent changes to the

delivery of instruction necessitate further validation and support.

Studies often focus on the general impact of primary student experiences on students’

cognitive development, but little evidence supports the direct link between

cooperative learning and the development of critical thinking skills (Cabrera et al.,

2002), and no research was found that links cooperative learning with the

development of need for cognition. As schools educators should consider appropriate

pedagogy for helping students develop their critical thinking skills. Teaching critical

thinking skills should be a primary purpose of primary education, yet several

4
educators and researchers maintain that critical thinking in undergraduate education is

in decline. Educators are “questioning whether organizational. Therefore, more

research supporting the development of critical thinking skills in primary students is

imperative to the long-term success of primary education. Several studies have

validated the effectiveness of student engagement strategies such as cooperative,

collaborative, and active learning, but most studies are based on test scores and other

forms of classroom achievement rather than on critical thinking and other forms of

long-term cognitive development .These studies generally measure individual

performance as a result of student engagement with peers. Although these studies

contribute to pedagogy, they fail to consider the longer term impact of specific

learning strategies on student cognitive development. Researchers have consistently

found a relationship between student engagement and positive classroom outcomes

such as attention and classroom performance (Ames, 1992; Carini, Kuh, & Klein,

2006; Kuh, 2003; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Skinner & Belmont, 1993). Although

fewer studies have addressed specifically cognitive development, some have found

relationships between student engagement and problem solving, retention, and logic

skills (Cooper, Cox, Nammouz, Case, & Stevens, 2008). Others have found that

students working closely with a diverse group of peers are more likely to experience

gains in the development of need for cognition (Goodman, 2011; Loes, 2009).

Students must think deeply about content and interact in meaningful ways for

effective collaboration to occur. Unfortunately, some faculty members are not always

skilled at assigning and managing the student collaboration process. The positive

effects of cooperative learning may be unrealized if students merely divide work

among members and forgo the group elaboration process. Effective cooperative

learning efforts must be well-designed and implemented, with structured interactions

5
and clearly defined interdependence among members (Slavin, 1980). As students

work together in structured, cooperative teams, they discuss and process information,

and thereby are more likely to experience gains in cognitive development than

students who work in isolation from each other (Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005). The

collective social process of learning together through debate and discussion allows

individuals to develop higher mental functioning (Vygotsky, 1978).Students’

cooperative efforts in the learning process are based on social constructivist theory,

whereby students construct knowledge as they attempt to fill gaps that social

interactions with other students uncover. Such gaps are discovered as students work

together and recognize differences in their own knowledge and beliefs. These

differences motivate individuals to bridge the knowledge gaps between themselves

and their peers. Effective teachers often require that students work in groups, which

tends to enhance students’ learning motivation (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). These

student interactions become an important part of the learning process. Student–faculty

and student–student interactions are important elements in creating a culture of

student success (Kuh, Kinzie, Schuh, & Whitt, 2010). Students often become

motivated to learn when faculty members provide appropriate and timely feedback in

response to students’ questions (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Additionally, when

students interact with faculty outside of class, they are challenged to think and apply

what they have learned; such interactions are crucial to the students’ intellectual

development. Students working collaboratively with others to solve problems further

improve the learning process (Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Communicating one’s

own perspective and evaluating other students’ perspectives serve to reinforce

concepts presented by the instructor. These student and faculty interactions help create

6
a more dynamic and active classroom environment conducive for student learning

(McKeachie, 1999).

7
4. CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Cooperative learning is a teaching method that uses small groups working together to

maximize the learning potential of each group member (Johnson, Johnson, & Smith,

1991).The cooperation among students creates interdependence which may lead to

increased motivation and cognitive processing. Collaboration among students in the

learning process is a fundamental principle of effective undergraduate teaching

(Antil,Jenkins, Wayne, & Vadasy, 1998; Astin, 1993; Chickering & Gamson,

1987;McKeachie, 1999; Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005; Tinto, 2003). Studies have

shown that cooperative learning influences gains in personal development,

understanding the sciences, appreciating art, and improving analytical skills (Cabrera

et al., 2002).Cooperation may include learning communities, peer study groups, or

class project teams. Cooperative learning’s basic premise is that students construct

knowledge through interaction with other students (Johnson et al., 1991). In such

cases, students work together to fill individual gaps that instructors may not

recognize. The most critical element of cooperative learning is that students must

work together to achieve common interdependent goals (Johnson et al., 1991). Such

goals require each student to achieve common interdependent goals (Johnson et al.,

1991). Such goals require each student to achieve individual goals in order for other

students to achieve their own goals. Instructors who use cooperative learning should

design activities and assignments that require students to rely on each other to

complete the work. The interdependence of group members provides the advantage of

cooperative learning over more traditional group discussion approaches.

Cooperative approaches to learning are not new concepts to teaching and date back to

the nineteenth century (Greene, 1986). Colonel Francis Parker (1837–1902),known as

8
the father of the Progressive Movement in education, began working with teachers in

the Cook County Normal School to encourage share work among students. He felt the

competitive nature of education was stifling children’s creativity. Parker sought to

democratize education by encouraging shared rather than competitive work. Shared

outcomes, as opposed to competitive grades, are critical to successful implementation

of cooperative learning. As stated earlier, faculty members often use cooperative and

collaborative learning techniques interchangeably. In general, cooperative learning is

more structured than collaborative learning. Cooperative learning generally consists

of five primary components: (a) positive interdependence, (b) face-to-face pro motive

interaction, (c) individual accountability, (d) social skills, and (e) group processing

(Johnson et al., 1991). Essentially, cooperative learning occurs when students

positively work together to achieve group goals. Johnson et al. (1991) suggested that

social skills and the promotion of positive interaction contribute to the success of

cooperation among group members. Therefore, some students may be better suited to

cooperative learning based on their ability to work with others. The use of positive

interdependence in learning environments may improve group achievement through

emphasis on rewards, motivation, and improved understanding of role activities (Nam

& Zellner, 2011). Positive interdependence describes the degree to which group

members are motivated to help each other succeed (Johnson et al., 1991). Within

groups, positive interdependence leads to positive conflict management, which

improves group cohesiveness and effectiveness (Deutsch 1977; Janssen, Vliert, and

Veenstra, 1999). Through positive interdependence, group members are likely to

focus on larger, positive group goals, and isolate conflict to the task at hand rather

than conflict between group members. The face-to-face interaction among group

members enhances the effectiveness of positive interaction because students

9
encourage and challenge each other to achieve group goals, and help each other

through feedback and support (Johnsonet al., 1991).

Individual accountability is critical to the success of cooperative learning because it

makes everyone personally responsible to the other group members. Such personal

accountability helps build a strong sense of community. Essentially, group members

become only as strong as the weakest member, which increases individual desire to

help others, and to keep up personally with the group. Therefore, group success

should be based on a compilation of scores by individuals, thus placing relevance on

each student’s output (Slavin, 1980). This interdependent approach calls for more

individual responsibility than typical collaborative group processes, which may

simply divide responsibilities. Group assignments potentially allow for one group

member to submit a collective response, which could compensate for weaker

members of the group.

In such cases, the strongest group member is likely to make up for

deficiencies of weaker group members, who subsequently fail to learn. As group

members perceive more inequity, satisfaction decreases and conflict increases (Wall &

Nolan, 1986). Group processing requires members to exhibit effective interpersonal

communication and group skills. Effective cooperative learning requires that members

exhibit social skills appropriate for small group interaction (Johnson et al., 1991).

Therefore, groups help students develop trust and respect through positive, face-to-

face interactions. Such strong social skills enhance a group’s ability to achieve the

benefits of cooperation. Group members who are not socially skilled in group

communication may inhibit the collaborative efforts of the group because they are less

able to communicate and collaborate with other members. When strong individual

skills are evident in all members, the group is better able to achieve the goal of

10
effective group processing, because each member is able to communicate and

contribute to the group (Morgeson,Reider & Campion, 2005). Group conflict often

inhibits groups from reaching consensus, and might erase the positive impact of

collaboration if the conflict is based on personal differences. Group members who are

strongly connected socially are more likely to engage in task-related conflict, which

results in higher cognitive complexity (Curseau,Janssen, & Raab,2011). Group

members who focus on interpersonal conflict are less likely to engage in task-related

conflict, which may result in reduced cognitive complexity. Group processing occurs

best when members are able to reflect on group processes, which results in

improvements in group functioning (Johnson et al., 1991).Strong group reflection is

more likely to occur when group members have built trust, shared equal

responsibility, have respect towards each other, and are positively motivated to

achieve group goals. Group reflection stimulates growth and improves group

effectiveness, ultimately leading to improved student learning. As more adult students

enter college classrooms, adult educators are shifting their instructional methods from

teacher-centered pedagogy to learner-centered and ragogical approaches (Merriam,

2001). Teacher-centered classrooms rely on a pedagogical style in which the instructor

transmits knowledge to the students (Knowles, 1970). In such cases, the student is

highly dependent on the instructor for learning. In and ragogical classrooms, by

contrast, instructors serve as learning facilitators rather than the sole knowledge

source. The student becomes the focal point rather than the teacher, a technique that

researchers have shown to improve thinking skills (Knowles, 1970; Tinto,

1997).Therefore, learner-centered classroom environments are more likely to elicit

higher order thinking gains than teacher-centered classrooms (Peterson & Walberg,

1979). In learner centered classrooms, students are more likely to work

11
interdependently, which requires them to help each other in the learning process. The

act of helping others and learning through interaction with others creates

interdependence between students, which may lead to an increased desire for

cognitive growth. Holtham, Melville, and Sodhi (2006) found that interdependent

groups performed much more effectively than students who simply allocated work

evenly among members. The key to interdependence is students relying on each other

for learning, and success depends on group members learning from each other. Of

course, faculty must carefully design groups to create appropriate interdependence

based on abilities and interests. By doing so, students are able to realize the benefits

of working cooperatively toward solving problems.

Cooperative learning is a teaching strategy that requires small student groups to work

interdependently on learning activities in order to achieve and receive group rewards

or recognition (Slavin, 1980). The primary benefit of cooperative learning is that

students may learn better when they work together because they are held accountable

to each other. Reciprocity and cooperation, which are two of Chickering and

Gamson’s (1987) seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education, are

core components of cooperative teaching. Learning is enhanced when students

collaborate with others and when they discuss multiple perspectives. Another

advantage of cooperative learning is that it allows for simultaneous teaching

approaches for multiple audiences and student levels (Antil et al., 1998). For instance,

high achieving students may assist low achieving students, resulting in deeper

learning for both. Students who teach other students must integrate and verbalize

knowledge, which may deepen the learning process. Students who learn from other

students may be less threatened by their lack of knowledge and, therefore, more

comfortable asking questions from a fellow student rather than a professor.

12
Furthermore, problem solving and verbalization are keys to the development of

student critical thinking skills (McKeachie, 1978) and are also integral to the

cooperative learning process. An effectively designed, cooperative group solves

problems through interactive discussion among members. Therefore, cooperative

learning approaches may lead to the development of need for cognition, by helping

students enjoy the process of learning together.

Cooperative learning’s distinguishing characteristics are the interdependence of group

members in the learning process, and the degree of structure within groups. However,

cooperative learning takes many shapes and may differ based on the instructor and

grade level. The four primary approaches to cooperative learning include Teams-

Games-Tournament, Student Teams Achievement Divisions, Jigsaw, and Small-Group

Teaching (Slavin, 1980). The Team-Games-Team approach divides the class into

teams of four to five students, which are tasked with preparing the group for an

academic competition. The goal is to get each team member ready so teams compete

with similar teams, using all levels of ability within each team. The competition then

matches students from each team with students of equal ability from other teams. This

provides incentive for each team to assure that all members are prepared. The Student

Teams Achievement Divisions approach uses the same team structure but measures

performance based on quizzes. Individual students earn points for their team based on

their own relative performance. The Jigsaw method uses similar teams, but it assigns

specific content to individuals within each team. Students with similar content

assignments work together, across teams, studying the same topic area. These

individuals then return to their respective teams to teach their content specialty area to

their teammates. Team scores are based on how well individuals taught their other

team members. This method provides maximum individual accountability to the team,

13
since team member grades depend on each individual teaching the content. The final

method, Small-Group Teaching, allows students to work in small discussion groups,

somewhat autonomously, preparing for a class presentation. Although this method

provides flexibility in learning, it also has the least amount of individual and team

accountability.

Studies show that some applications of cooperative learning are more

effective than others. Formal approaches to cooperative learning are task-driven with

specific learning objectives and pre-determined assignments (Johnson, Johnson, &

Smith, 1998).Students are closely monitored, and the instructor assesses results and

group processes. Formal approaches include significant group reflection on process.

Informal approaches are generally temporary and are likely to have fewer group

rewards and reflection. Some instructors use these groups to reinforce a particular

element of a more traditional presentation. Cooperative base groups are long-term

support groups designed to encourage students to work together for the duration of a

course, providing support as needed. With almost no interdependence, this structure

does not achieve the benefits of the more cooperative approaches.

Perhaps the most effective form of cooperative learning is Sharan and

Sharan’s (1990) Group Investigation Model, which provides students with more

control over the content and method of learning. In this method, groups identify the

investigation topic and then determine the methods, roles, and group member

responsibilities before making a formal presentation of findings to the class. This

method maximizes individual and group accountability because students have

complete responsibility for the project. The accountability gains result in improved

interdependence among group members, which leads to improved group functioning.

14
As stated earlier, some teachers mistake cooperative learning for collaborative

learning because both types of learning involve students working together. Although

the two concepts share a student-centered, discussion orientation, important

distinctions exist between the two approaches. Collaborative learning, on the one

hand, is characterized by students working together to achieve individual goals

(Bruffee, 1999; Panitz, 1997). On the other hand, cooperative learning requires task

interdependence while working toward shared goals (Johnson et al., 1991). Therefore,

each member under a cooperative learning model has incentive to perform and to

assure that other members perform as well. Collaborative learners work in teams but

are rewarded for individual performance. Students benefit from interacting with each

other, but unlike cooperative learning, there are no incentives to assure that each

individual student succeeds. Therefore, weaker students in collaborative groups may

be left behind, whereas cooperative teams are more likely to support them in

achieving learning outcomes.

Active learning (Bonwell & Eison, 1991) is a broad concept of

engaging students in higher order thinking and synthesis activities, and it

encompasses both cooperative and collaborative learning. Active learning

encompasses a wide range of activities designed to involve students, such as small

group discussion, group projects, and personal reflection (Astin, 1993; Chickering &

Gamson, 1987; McKeachie, 1999; Pascarella &Terenzini, 2005). Similar to

collaborative approaches, students benefit from active learning, but learning generally

remains an individual activity rather than a shared responsibility because active

approaches may lack structured interdependence. Some instructors may assign

students to group projects or classroom discussion groups, thereby incorporating

partial elements of cooperative learning into their classrooms. Although these

15
strategies have several positive outcomes, without interdependence between members,

students may fail to achieve the full benefits of a well-designed cooperative learning

approach. For instance, small group discussions provide opportunities for students to

share ideas with each other. However, without group Interdependence, students may

not achieve the full benefits associated with accountability among members. Students

may simply rely on the most competent student to complete the task for the entire

group.

Educational researchers have presented a variety of cooperative learning models

and found them useful in particular sphere of knowledge. Some of these models are

the Jigsaw, Group Investigation, Student Teams Achievement Divisions, and Learning

Together.

Jigsaw model of cooperative learning was developed by Aronson (1978) in

which, students are put in small groups. The Students have to learn the given material

in their groups. The given material was divided into parts and the students in groups

read the part of material allocated to each member of the group. Then Students come

together in expert groups to discuss the material. After that they return to their groups

to teach the group mates about the part of material which they mastered in expert

groups. This is very helpful for discussion in the second language due to the

elaboration of material to other group mate which is unseen for them. As indicated in

research by Pica (1994), it has been proven that negotiation improves students’

understanding in the target language. However, it is necessary for the teachers to

ensure that the students must have read and understand the assigned material.

This was designed by Sharan (1988), in which, groups are assigned

the topics from the material taught in the class by the teacher. These topics are broken

16
down into small activities among the group members and groups reports are prepared

and presented in the class by the group as a whole.

Slavin (1995) says, in this model, students are divided in teams consisting of four to

six heterogeneous members. The teacher teaches the content to students then the

students go to their teams and learn the content, presented in the class, with the help

of their team mates. After that students are assessed on individual basis by giving

them quizzes consisting of the content learned during working in teams. The

performance of students’ is calculated by comparing the scores gotten in the present

quiz with the average scores of the past performances and improvement points are

given to students on the base they surpass from the previous performances. Team

scores are calculated by adding these improvement points and dividing them with the

total number of team members. Slavin put forward his opinion that this model of

cooperative learning proved effective to teach grammatical items and vocabulary in

English language class rooms. He further says that “STAD” model of cooperative

learning showed very consistent results when used in English language classes and

enhances the achievements of the students.

Johnson, Johnson & Holubec (1994) mentioned five essential elements of

this model of cooperative learning which are:(1) positive interdependence denotes that

every member in a team must be aware that he is the part and parcel of his group they

have to "sink or swim together" (p. 9). (2) Individual and group accountability refers

that each member of the team is accountable for his participation in struggle for a

common goal and the team is accountable for the achievement of shared goal of the

team. (3)Working together means that the team members help to promote each other’s

learning; promotive face-to-face interaction. (4) Small group skills refer that students

must have the knowledge to resolve the conflicts positively because “cooperation and

17
conflict are interrelated”. (5) Group processing means to assess the working of the

students in a group and to know about what is going on within the group and where

the students need for improvement.

The participants in both control and intervention groups were taught

by the researcher himself. The experiment proceeded according to the four

components of “STAD” model of cooperative learning i.e. teacher demonstration,

team work, individual quiz and team recognition. First of all, the teacher presented the

material in the class and discusses it with students for their understanding. Then

students went to their teams to work on worksheets given by the teacher relevant to

the concept which was taught in the class. The team members worked in teams and

helped each other in learning the content assigned to them. Before returning the

worksheet, all the team members have to sign the sheet to make it sure that they have

learnt the concept and all the answers were given with consensus.

Cooperative learning relies on the notion that students achieve more

when they take personal responsibility for their own learning and when they work

interdependently with others toward achieving shared group outcomes. As a result,

students may gain appreciation for the learning process, potentially leading to

increased need for cognition. This concept is consistent with a constructivist

philosophy to education, which maintains that social interaction among students is the

critical factor in cognitive development (Nyikos & Hashimoto, 1997). Constructivist

theory includes both cognitive and social constructivist schools of thought. Cognitive

constructivism is characterized by individual construction of knowledge as

individuals interact with the world around them. The basis for this philosophy is that

people respond and adapt individually to changes in their environment. Alternatively,

social constructivism suggests that cognitive development is the result of social

18
interactions rather than individual adaptations (Vygotsky, 1978). Thus, students who

work in cooperative teams collectively learn and adapt to environmental changes.

Using a social constructivist approach, learners create their own sense of reality

through their own interpretation of these experiences (Jonassen, 1991). Therefore,

social constructivist theory supports the cooperative learning approach to education,

which may lead to the development of need for cognition. The social constructivist

approach tends to be more consistent with cooperative, student-centered forms of

learning, while the objectivist approach seems to fit a more traditional, teacher-

centered approach. Cooperative learning efforts contribute to the knowledge

construction because when students collaborate, they recognize differences between

themselves and others, which create internal conflict with previously held beliefs

(Johnson et al., 1998). These social interactions then stimulate a desire to reconstruct

reality to establish a new equilibrium based on the new knowledge gained from the

interactions (Vygotsky, 1978). This reconstruction process serves as the foundation for

group interaction and provides valuable positive reinforcement during the cooperative

learning process, which in turn may lead to enjoyment of cognitive processes. Positive

reinforcement is consistent with positive interdependence theory, which stems from

social interdependence theory. The social interdependence perspective is based on

Gestalt psychologist Kurt Koffka, whose work focused on a holistic notion of groups

functioning with varying degrees of individual interdependence (Johnson &Johnson,

2009). Koffka claimed people’s views were based on the idea that human events were

connected to a larger whole rather than merely isolated occurrences. Thus, any change

by an individual group member impacts the entire group and each individual within

the group. This helps explain why the design of cooperative groups is critical to the

learning process. The interdependence between group members shapes the outcome of

19
the group depending on the degree of interdependence, the task at hand, and the

group’s cohesiveness. Therefore, cooperative groups perform better with clearly

defined goals and activities that build group cohesiveness.

Positive interdependence theory claims that individual success

depends on others’ success (Deutsch, 1962, Johnson et al., 1991) and that group

members who work together encourage each other to learn (Johnson et al., 1998).

Thus, positive interdependence promotes and rewards cooperation among group

members, a fundamental element of cooperative learning. Cooperation within groups

tends to improve productivity due to 23 group pride and harmony resulting from

achieving common goals (Deutsch, 1949).Positive interdependence can result from

students who fear they will let others in the group down, or from students who thrive

on helping others succeed. Deutsch advanced Kafka’s social interdependence theory

by suggesting that groups and group members can improve performance through the

addition of positive interdependence among group members.

Negative interdependence is the opposite of positive

interdependence, and presumes that achieving individual goals is dependent on other

members of the group failing to achieve their own individual goals. Negative

interdependence is often a result of too much internal competitiveness, which could

lead to hostility and insecurity among group members who are driven to succeed at

the expense of other group members (Johnson & Johnson, 2009). As group members

compete for limited degrees of success or power, negative interdependence may cause

members to undermine each other, which subsequently undermines group goals. This

competitiveness is consistent with more competitive approaches to education that only

reward individual efforts. Effectively designed group goals and rewards reduce

negative interdependence by eliminating personal gains which result from too much

20
emphasis on individual success. Interdependence among group members takes many

different shapes. Morton Deutsch (1982) identified five distinct dimensions of

interdependence:

Cooperative–competition reflects the atmosphere surrounding the nature of the

task. For instance, one should expect a marriage to be more cooperative, while

political tasks may be more competitive.

Power distribution influences the degree of true group cooperation rather than

cases of group submission. One is less likely to expect open cooperation when one

or more group members have real position power over other members.

Task-oriented versus social-emotional. This reflects the degree of personal

feelings driving the engagement process such as interaction among family and

friends versus interaction among co-workers or teammates.

Formal versus informal. Informal groups, like families, may have loosely

structured norms, while formal groups like work-related committees may have

well-defined goals and norms driving group interaction.

Intensity or importance. This indicates the degree of relevance for the group

decision process. Even within formal groups, some decisions are more intense

than others, which will impact the degree of interdependence.

These five dimensions contribute to shaping the relative degree of interdependence

within groups.

Behavioral learning theory also explains some of the primary

benefits of cooperative learning, where students are motivated to succeed based on

either reward or punishment (Johnson et al., 1998; Skinner, 1938). As such,

cooperative learners may be motivated to achieve group rewards in addition to

individual recognition. An individual’s perceived self-efficacy impacts his or her

21
effort and persistence on a learned behavior (Bandura, 1977). The behavioral learning

perspective recognizes that people are motivated to achieve positive rewards and

avoid negative outcomes from failure. Cooperative learning encourages group

members to provide both positive and negative outcomes that reinforce individual

behavior. As individuals achieve goals, cooperative groups offer the necessary

rewards to reinforce positive behavior.

Much of the cooperative learning literature focuses on the

short-term impact on student learning rather than on long-term cognitive

development. Additionally, many studies focus on the application of cooperative

learning within particular disciplines. Studies on cooperative learning typically

consider outcomes such as classroom achievement or standardized test scores. For

instance, Jalilifar (2010) compared differences in reading comprehension between

English language learners in conventional classrooms instruction and student teams, a

cooperative learning environment, and found that student teams achieved significant

improvement in performance on a standardized English language proficiency test.

Bowen (2000) found similar results when he evaluated cooperative learning in the

fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).Although insightful,

these outcomes may not capture fully cooperative learning benefits(Slavin, 1980).

Standardized test scores and individual performance measures are typically associated

with teacher-centered classrooms, as opposed to measures used in student-centered,

cooperative classrooms (McKeachie, Pintrich, & Lin, 1985). Unlike previous studies,

this study considers the impact of cooperative learning on broader cognitive gains.

22
 A variety of constructs are available to define cognitive

development in students, including critical thinking, reflective judgment, reasoning,

and decision making (Brookfield, 1997; King & Kitchener, 1994). Need for cognition

is a measure of a person’s enjoyment of and tendency to participate in cognitive

activities (Cacioppo &Petty, 1982). Students possessing a high need for cognition are

more likely to search for information and create personal meaning through higher

order thinking. They feel a dissonance when something does not fit into the world

they have constructed. People with high need for cognition enjoy evaluating multiple

perspectives, which leads to ongoing learning. Those with low need for cognition are

more likely to rely on the opinion of others and are less likely to evaluate multiple

perspectives (Cacioppo & Petty,1982; Cohen, Stotland, & Wolfe, 1955). These people

are less open to change or hearing other perspectives. Need for cognition reflects the

desire individuals tend to have to organize new information into a personal meaning

(Cohen et al., 1955). When people fail to integrate new information into existing

paradigms, they experience a desire to integrate new information into existing

meaning in order to resolve this conflict. The strength of this need depends on the

individual’s ability to tolerate varying degrees of ambiguity. People with high need for

cognition generally enjoy thinking about challenging issues, and particularly enjoy

complex and ambiguous problems (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982). Those who enjoy the

thinking process tend to elaborate on incoming messages more thoroughly than those

with low need for cognition. The Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty &Cacioppo,

1986) indicates that those with high need for cognition are influenced by

communication that is central to the primary argument, because they think more

carefully in processing information. Conversely, those with low need for cognition are

influenced more by peripheral routes to persuasion, resulting in more superficial

23
evaluation of incoming information. Thus, the elaboration process in those with high

need for cognition is strongly correlated with better academic performance (Petty &

Cacioppo, 1986).According to McKeachie et al. (1985), students engaging in

elaboration processes tend to increase their motivation to learn, indicating that the use

of elaboration influences a student’s desire to continue elaborative processes

throughout life.

24
5. CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY

3.1 Research Design

The study was Quasi-experimental. A pre-test - post test Control group design was

used. The experiment was lasted for twelve weeks.

3.2 Procedures

At the start of the study, pre-test was administered to all the participants of the study.

This pre-test focused on student’s knowledge of English grammar (parts of speech and

tenses). At last, the same pre-test was given to participants as a post test on the

completion of the treatment. The test was lasted for one and half hour.

Implementation of STAD model of cooperative learning the participants in both

control and intervention groups were taught by the researcher himself. The

experiment proceeded according to the four components of “STAD” model of

cooperative learning i.e. teacher demonstration, team work, individual quiz and team

recognition. First of all, the teacher presented the material in the class and discusses it

with students for their understanding. Then students went to their teams to work on

worksheets given by the teacher relevant to the concept which was taught in the class.

The team members worked in teams and helped each other in learning the content

assigned to them. Before returning the worksheet, all the team members have to sign

the sheet to make it sure that they have learnt the concept and all the answers were

given with consensus. After this, students were given quizzes which they have to do

without taking any help from their fellows. At the end, the students corrected their

quizzes themselves with the help of the key provided by the teacher. The marks

obtained in the quizzes were used to calculate the improvement points by comparing

25
them with base score i.e. past average achievement of each student. The average of

improvement points of all team members in a team were taken as team score to

recognize it as good, great or supper team. In the whole process the researcher

remained in the class to facilitate, guide and help the student if they felt any need.

3.3 Sample

The sample of the study comprised of 7th class students of two public schools of

Gujranwala city running under the control of Ministry of Labor and Human Resource

Punjab. Four intact (as it is) sections were taken from both boys and girls schools.

One of the sections from each school was randomly assigned to experimental and

control groups. The experimental group consisted of 93 (boys 47 & girls 46) students

and control group consisted of 91(boys 44 & girls 47) students. Three (3) students

from each group (control and experimental) did not appear in the post test. So, they

were excluded from the study.

3.4 Formation of teams

In order to form the teams, the researchers arranged the participants of the

experimental groups on the basis of pre-test scores ranking from high to low. Keeping

in view the strength of the experimental groups, the researcher decided to have five

members in each team. The total number of students in treatment groups was 93 (44

boys + 49 girls).So, the number of teams was nine of boys and ten of girls. Each team

had five members but the last teams of both the boys and the girls had four members

each. The researchers formed the heterogeneous teams, consisting of students of high,

average and low abilities each. For this purpose, a list of participants of experimental

groups was prepared separately for boys and girls on the basis of pre-test score

ranking from high to low.

26
 The researcher used the letters A-J as names of teams and formed nine

teams for boys and the letters A-K and formed ten teams for girls of experimental

groups. The teams were formed in such a way as if the top scorer was in team ‘A’, the

least scorer was also in team ‘A’ and if the second top securer was in team ‘B’, the

second least securer was also in team ‘B’, and so on. This was done to form the teams

having mixed ability students.

At the first day of the class, the researchers made the students

to practice. During the practice he told them how to sit during the team work. The

researchers prepared a work sheet based on the material other than the one which was

going to be taught during treatment. He presented the same topic to the learners and

then said them to work in teams. After that he conducted a quiz as a practice. During

the practice period many questions were raised by the students, were answered by the

researchers. He made the students aware of the whole procedure of (SATD) model of

cooperating learning. The researcher also told the participants about the calculation of

quiz scores and improvement points.

3.5 Research Instrument

An achievement test was developed and used by the researcher as pre and post test.

Pilot testing was conducted to test the reliability of instrument which was 0.89 and

calculated through Cronbach Alfa reliability test. Validity of instrument was checked

by four English teachers who were teaching at elementary level.

27
 Finding

Table 1

Over all comparison of control and experimental groups on pre- test and post test scores

Control (N= 88) Experimental t.value df p.value Effect

size
Mean SD (N=90)

Mean SD
Pre-test 22.26 6.89 22.37 6.54 - 0.114 182 .910 22.26

Post- 30.13 789 43.55 6.94 -12.04 176 .000*** 0.45

test

***P<0.001

In overall comparison of control and experimental groups, no statistical significant

difference is observed on pre-test between mean scores of control group (M=22.26,

SD=6.89) and experimental group (M=22.37, SD=6.54). The value of t (182) =0.114,

p=0.910 is greater than α=0.05 whereas in comparison between the mean scores of

control group (M=30.13, SD=789) and experimental group (M=43.55, SD=6.9)

statistical significant difference is observed. The value of t (176) = -12.04, p=0.000 is

less than α=0.001.The value of effect size was 0.45 which showed large magnitude of

increase in achievement of experimental.

Table 2

28
 Comparison of control and experimental groups of male students on pre-test and post test

scores.

Control (N= 88) Experimental t.value df p.value Effect

size
Mean SD (N=90)

Mean SD
Pre-test 21.104 5.73 20.54 5.5 0.475 90 .636

Post- 29.04 5.53 41.02 6.86 -7.56 85 .000*** 0.40

test

***P<0.001

In comparison of control and experimental groups of male students, there is no

statistical significant difference between mean scores of control group (M=21.10,

SD=5.73) and mean scores of experimental group (M=20.54, SD=5.5) on pre-test. The

value of t (90) =.475, p=.636 is greater than α=0.05 whereas in comparison of mean

scores of control group (M=29.04, SD=6.86) and the mean score of experimental

group (M=41.02, SD=6.86) on post test, both the groups are significantly different in

their mean scores. The value of t (85) = -7.56, p=0.000 is less than α=0.001.The value

of effect size was 0.40 which showed large magnitude of increase in achievement of

experimental group.

Table 3

29
 Comparison of control and experimental groups of female students on pre-test and
post test scores
Control (N= 88) Experimental t.value df p.value Effect
size
Mean SD (N=90)

Mean SD
Pre-test 23.55 7.8 24.02 6.9 -0.299 90 .766

Post- 31.27 7.8 45.77 6.2 -9.73 89 .000*** 0.51

test

***P<0.001
Comparison between control and experimental groups of female students on pre-test

scores points out that there have been seen no statistically significant difference

between mean scores of control group (M=23.55, SD=7.8) and experimental group

(M=22.37, SD=6.54). The value of t (90) = -0.299, p=0.766 is greater than α=0.05.The

comparison between control and experimental groups of female students on post test

scores shows that there is a significant difference between mean scores of control

group (M=31.27, SD=7.8) and experimental group (M=45.77, SD=6.2).The value of t

(89) = -9.73, p=0.000 is less than α=0.001. The value of effect size is 0.51 which

shows a large magnitude of increase in achievement of the participants of

experimental group after treatment.

6. CHAPTER 4: RESULTS OF THE STUDY

4.1 Results and discussions

30
In teacher-centered whole class traditional method the students work individually or

competitively and generally concerned with improving their own grade and their

goals are individualistic rather than group wise. This is in contrast with cooperative

learning method of instruction whereby students work together in groups to reach

common goals. Within cooperative learning, students benefit from sharing ideas rather

than working alone. Students help one another so that all can reach some measure of

success. Slavin (1983) said, if there was not group rewards, there was no reason for

the group fellows to help each others to increase the learning of their team mates. So

far as present research is concerned, the team recognition part of the STAD model of

cooperative learning operates as the motivator and provides group rewards. STAD

model of cooperative learning gives equal chance of success to all the team members

because team recognition is based on the gains of the whole team. The students

learning through this model were inclined to add into their own and the learning of

their team mates too at the same time. The high ability students in the teams tried to

help to the low ability students of their teams to enhance their achievement. On the

other hand, the students with low ability did not understand the teacher’s lecture

easily because they had not enough language proficiency to understand it. So, they

prefer to learn the concepts by their team mates who have high ability. The students

feel at ease to be taught from their friends rather their teachers (Krashen, 1981).

Cooperative learning is based on the theory of interactive structures. STAD model of

cooperative learning provides variety of interactions which benefit students because

language learning is highly interactive process. Carefully structured interactions and

the inclusion of reward structure in the form of team recognition contributed to the

academic achievement which was observed in the study. This study provided

important data on the use of STAD model of cooperative learning method for

31
development of English language at elementary level. In this study, experimental and

control groups were taken to compare the effectiveness of cooperative learning

method in teaching of English grammar versus teacher- centered whole class

traditional method respectively. The groups were compared on pre-test and post test

scores to observe the initial difference before the experiment and the effect of

cooperative learning STAD model on their achievement after the experiment

respectively. The effect size was also calculated to make out the magnitude of increase

in the achievement of experimental groups. In overall comparison on pre-test scores

of control groups (Mean Score 22.26) and experimental groups (Mean Score 22.37)

showed no statistical significance difference as the p.value is greater than 0.05 where

as both the groups (Control with Mean Score 30.16 and experimental with Mean

Score 43.55) showed highly significant difference on post- test scores as the p-value is

less than 0.001.The effect size was 0.45 which showed a high increase in the

achievement of experimental group (Table 1). In the same way, the control and

experimental groups of male and female participants were also compared to find out

the gender wise impact of cooperative learning. The male participants of control

group (Mean Score 21.104) and experiment group (Mean Score 20.54) did not show

significant difference on pre-test scores as the p-value is greater than 0.05. On the

other hand, when compared on post-test scores the significant difference was

observed between the performance of control group (mean Score 29.04) and

experimental group (Mean Score 41.02) as the p-value is less than 0.001. The effect

size was 0.40 which showed a high increase in the achievement of experimental group

(Table 2).

In the comparison of control group (Mean Score 23.55) and experimental group

(Mean Score 24.02) of female students on pre-test scores, no statistical significant

32
difference was found in the achievement of both the groups as the p-value was greater

than 0.05.Contrary to this, both the groups (Control with Mean Score 31.27 and

experimental with Mean Score 45.77) were significantly different in their

performance when compared on post test scores as the p-value was less than 0.001.

The effect size was 0.51 which showed a high raise in the achievement of

experimental group (Table 3). The above discussed results revealed that the treatment

classes outperformed the control classes in learning English grammar through

cooperative learning STAD model. The achievement scores of the participants in

experimental groups on the post test showed highly significant relationship between

STAD model of cooperative learning method and students’ achievements in English

grammar. The results of this study are comparable to many other researches which

have shown effectiveness of cooperative learning method in developing students’

second language and they said that the cooperative learning occurred in response of

the mental activities of the learners rather than the direct transmission of learning

material (Erdem, 1993, .Brown, 1987, Ghath & Yaghy, 1998, Gomleksz, 2007). The

above mentioned results showed that the male and female participants of the treatment

groups gave better performance on post test scores when compared separately with

their counter parts, the male and female students of control groups, respectively. It

means that STAD model of cooperative learning positively affected the achievement

of both male and female students. Therefore, we can infer from the results of the study

that the cooperative learning method had significant positive effect on academic

achievement of the students as a whole as well as the achievement of the male and

female students when compared separately. To sum up, the results of undertaken

research study presented the strong evidence for the implementation of cooperative

33
learning method in the English language classes to enhance the standard of English

language in Pakistan.

34
7. CHAPTER 5: Conclusions and Recommendations

The findings obtained from this study revealed that the participants in small

cooperative groups got significantly higher scores on achievement test than those who

were taught through whole class traditional method. Therefore, on the basis of the

results of this study, it is strongly recommended to use STAD model of cooperative

learning method to teach English grammar to male and female students in English

language classrooms. It is recommended for the teachers that they must create such a

learning environment in English language classrooms where students can work in

teams to help one another and at the same time enhance their own knowledge as well.

Furthermore, the teacher who wants to use cooperative learning in their classrooms

must organize the teams of heterogeneous students because it will provide big

opportunity for peer tutoring. The teacher must play the role of facilitator and help the

students when necessary. For the further research in the field of cooperative learning,

it is recommended that the researchers may use it in the classes other than the

elementary level as well as for other subjects. They may conduct studies to test the

other models of cooperative learning instead of STAD.

35
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

 Alireza, J. (2010). The effect of cooperative learning techniques on college

students reading comprehension. System 38, 96-108.
 Aronson, E. (1978). Jigsaw classroom. Sage, Beverley Hills.
 Artz, A. F., & Newman, C.M. (1990). Cooperative learning. Mathematics
teacher, 83, 448-449.
 Brown, R. (1987).Self regulation and other mysterious mechanisms. In Meta
cognition, Motivation and Understanding, edited by F.Winter and R. Kluwe,pp
65-116
 Ellis, R. (1994). The study of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
 Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, Research and Practice.

(2nd Ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon Slavin R. E. (1987).Cooperative learning:

Student teams. What research says to the teachers? National Education

Association. Washington, DC. Slavin, R. E. (1983).When does cooperative

learning increase student achievement? Psychology Bulletin, 94,429-445.

 Warsi, J. (2004). Conditions under which English is taught in Pakistan: An

applied linguistic perspective. Sarid Journal. Retrieved May 12, 2010 from

sarid.net/sarid- journal/2004_Wars.

36
37