This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Students will appreciate the value of teamwork and make a positive contribution when working with others to solve problems and complete tasks. Students learn research skills more readily when skills are shared through cooperative learning. Cooperative Learning allows students to enhance their ability to manage ideas and information in collaboration with others. Cooperative Learning allows students to observe, imitate, and learn from each other. Students keep each other on task and share a sense of accomplishment. The encouragement, support, and approval of peers build motivation and make learning an enjoyable experience. In addition, with advances in technology and changes in the workforce infrastructure, the teamwork and cooperation learned through Cooperative Learning activities is of high value for the future success for the students. What is Cooperative Learning? Cooperative Learning is a method of teaching and learning in which students form teams for structured activities to achieve a common goal. They are individually accountable for their work, and the work of the entire group. Members of cooperative teams work together and have clearly defined roles. Merely putting students in groups and letting them work together is not enough to constitute Cooperative Learning. Cooperative Learning should include five essentials: Positive Interdependence Students realize that each individual affects the work and success of the others. The work is structured so that students must share information in order to complete their cooperative tasks. Student-to-Student Interaction The teacher openly encourages students to help each other. Students share resources with each other, provide constructive feedback, challenge other members' reasoning and ideas, keep an open mind, act in a trustworthy way, and promote a safe feeling for all by reducing anxiety. Individual Accountability Even though students work together, they also perform independently. Each individual's performance is assessed. Students must take personal responsibility for working toward the group goal(s). Social Skills Students learn and use appropriate social skills that include leadership, decision-making, trust building, communication, and conflict-management. Group Process To better develop the group process, students must analyze how well they are achieving their goals while maintaining effective working relationships. What are some Cooperative Learning Approaches? To be successful, Cooperative Learning tasks are designed by teachers so that students are required to depend on one another to complete the assigned tasks and to master content and skills. There are many Cooperative Learning approaches that are designed to achieve different objectives. When these approaches are used frequently and correctly, students will acquire the positive results of Cooperative Learning. Several Cooperative Learning approaches are described below. TEACHING ECONOMICS USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING APPROACH: ACCOUNTING STUDENTS¶ PERFORMANCE AND ATTITUDE Zahariah Mohd Zain, Geetha Subramaniam, Arlinah Abd Rashid, Erlane K Ghani Abstract
Using experimental and post experimental setting, this study examines whether different learning approach influence students behaviour. Specifically, this study examines whether using cooperative learning approach could improve students performance in economics course better than the conventional approach. This study also examines the students attitude towards economics subject, communication skill and social skill upon reliance on the learning approach used in the experiment. Sixty one undergraduate accounting students in a public university in Malaysia participated in this study. The results show that although there is a difference in performance between students using cooperative learning approach and students using conventional approach, the result is not significant. However, the students attitude toward economic subject, communication skill and social skill is more positive among the cooperation learning approach group compared to the conventional approach group. The findings of this study provide some understanding to academics and universities on the use of different learning approaches in teaching economics subject to accounting students. Keywords: economics; undergraduate students; cooperative learning approach http://www.cscanada.net/index.php/css/article/view/1166 LITERATURE REVIEW Students performance has often being used as the key element to measure the success of the education process. The success of the education process depends not only on the physical facilities and qualified educators, but also as much upon the attitudes, aspirations and awareness of the students themselves (Hijazi and Naqvi, 2006). Students performance could also rely on other factors related to the students background and behaviour (Devadoss and Foltz, 1996). The success of the education process could also rely on the learning approach used in the classrooms (Yamarick, 2007) as well as students attitude upon reliance on the learning approach (Holtfreter and Holtfreter, 2000). One of the learning approaches suggested in improving students performance is the cooperative learning approach. Cooperative learning approach is one of the most popular instructional strategies in classrooms (Yamarick, 2007). Cooperative learning approach is defined as an instructional use of small groups so that the students could work together in maximising their own and other members learning (Johnson et al., 1991). Apart from attainning usual learning goals, it also includes the goal of establishing a collaborative relationship among students (McCulloch 1985). Such approach was introduced based on the belief that if students work individually or competitively, the goals in a community could not be fully achieved (Drsicoll, 2000). This approach stresses that students are not responsible for their own learning
the cooperative learning group has a higher mean score of students performance (82. 1998. 1998. Yamarick.. 2007). Two theories that support the use of cooperative learning approach in improving students performance are motivational model and cognitive model. accounting (Holtfreter and Holfreter. 2007). 1999). however. 1999. Brooks and Khandker. One attribute to such limitation is that most economics lecturers tend to use predominantly teaching method (Benzing and Christ. 2000). 1978). 1997) and engineering (Felder et al. Cheah and Poon.32) compared to the mean score of students performance of conventional approach group (79. their efforts would be directed towards helping each other learn and succeed (Slavin. They become more positive towards the subject (Astin. 1997.. on average. The results are mixed. These studies used experimental setting in determining the influence of cooperative learning approach to students performance. These studies found that participants who were exposed to cooperative learning approach performed better that those participants who used conventional approach. Another body of the education literature have examined students attitude on cooperative learning approach (such as Astin. 1997). there are limited studies that have examined the link between cooperative learning approach and students performance and attitude using economics subject as the setting. The results show that there is a different in students performance between the two groups. Examining this issue in the field of economics context would shed some lights on whether similar results would appear. Studies that have examined the link between cooperative learning approach and students performance have focused on various fields. Whicker et al. such as accounting. Becker and Watts (2001) found in their survey that students who took economics classes devote only a small amount of time involving discussion. 1987. Few studies showed that students using the cooperative learning approach tend to perform better than those students relying on conventional approach (Moore.. Hypothesis 1 states that there is no significant effect difference on students performance between cooperative learning approach and conventional approach. 1986). 1991). 2007). English. compared to other fields (Sax et al. 1998.. Cheah and Poon. 2002.. 1977. In summary. cognitive model argued that students must be active learners to enable them to elaborate and explain the material learned to other students in order to retain the information (Wittrock. 1997). The mixed results could not provide conclusive evidence on the link between cooperative learning approach and students performance. . although limited. Within the economics education literature. 2000. Yamarick.but also for their group members learning. Panel 2 provides the results that show whether there is any significant difference on the students performance between cooperative learning approach group and conventional group.. Yamarick.. Motivational model suggested that when students work together towards a common goal as they do when cooperative learning takes places. Therefore. However. there are studies that have focused on cooperative learning approach and its impact on students performance (such as Johnson and Johnson. Brawner et al. 2000). there are a number of studies that examined the link between cooperative learning and students performance (Moore. food and nutrition (Abu and Flowers. 2002). Specifically. 2001.46). The fields include calculus (Whicker et al. Abu and Flowers.. 1999). These studies showed that students tend to favour cooperative learning approach compared to conventional approach (Holtfreter and Holtfreter. 2000). The lack of such examination motivates this study to examine these issues in a Malaysian setting. This hypothesis was tested using independent T-Test. Brooks and Khandker. Holtfreter and Holtfreter. Learning approach and students performance This section presents the results of testing hypothesis 1. Other studies showed no supporting evidence (Johnston et al. study on attitude towards cooperative learning in the economics education literature has yet to be extensively examined. Jensen and Owen. 1997. Similarly. 1999. 2000). Further test. These studies showed that students also tend to become more forward looking to class and actively participate in class discussion. Studies that examined the link between cooperative learning approach and students performance in the field of economics are limited (Yamarick. Within the education literature. mathematics and science (Cheah and Poon. 1977) as well as being able to communicate effectively and improving their social skills (Johnson et al. particularly when teaching economics subject as a non-core subject for a group of students of different field. Johnson et al. 2002. the importance of cooperative learning approach on students performance is evident. 2007).
94) on their communication skill compared to the attitude mean score of the participants in the conventional group (2. participants in the cooperative learning approach group have a more positive attitude mean score (4.000). This is evidenced when the examiners of the participants answer scripts found that participants in the cooperative learning group have their essay answers explained well and detailed compared to the conventional group. Panel B. Such results indicate that the participants in the cooperative group exhibit a higher degree of confidence and are able to express themselves better in class presentation compared to the participants in the conventional group. Despite the insignificant difference between the two groups. The results in this study failed to support previous studies that show significant difference in students performance between students being taught using cooperative learning approach and the students being taught using the conventional approach (Moore.. The results in this study indicate that learning approach does not play a significant role in influencing students performance.87) compared to participants in the conventional approach (3.2631). the results of testing hypothesis 2 for the three variables of attitude are rejected. The results of the independent T-Test show significant difference between the attitude mean score of the two groups (p=0.48). Three variables of attitude were chosen: subject. hypothesis 1 is accepted. found that there are significant differences on students attitude between the cooperative learning approach group and the conventional group. supports the findings in Johnston et al. Johnson et al. Panel C of Table 3 presents the results of testing whether the participants attitude towards their social skill differ between the cooperative learning approach group and conventional group. This study also examines the students attitude towards the subject. participants in the cooperative learning approach group have a more positive attitude mean score (3. Brooks and Khandker. Table 3 presents the results of testing whether the participants attitude towards the communication skill differ between the cooperative learning approach group and conventional group. 6. 2000. (2000). In summary. The results in this study. 2001.3 Learning Approach and Attitude This section presents the results of testing hypothesis 2. The results show that on average. 2002.shows that the mean score difference between the two groups is not significant (p=0. Therefore. The results in panel A of Table 3 shows that more participants in the cooperative learning approach have more positive attitude towards economics subject (3. These variables were tested using independent T-Test. Therefore. Hypothesis 2 states that there is no significant effect difference on students attitude between cooperative learning approach and conventional approach. communication skill and social skill improved when they were being exposed to cooperative learning approach compared to conventional approach. more focused and able to complete the assignments within the stipulated time compared to the participants in the conventional group. 5.53). Therefore. The results indicate that students attitude toward economics subject. The results show that on average. communication skill and social skill compared to the participants who were exposed to the conventional approach. Yamarick. The results of the independent T-Test show significant difference between the attitude mean score of the two groups (p=0. the participants in the cooperative learning approach group enjoyed to this way of learning approach since their academic accomplishments were valued and rewarded. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This study examines whether using cooperative learning approach could improve students performance in economics subject better than the conventional approach.90). hypothesis 2 for attitude on subject is rejected. 2007). This study. The results in this study supports the findings of Holtfreter and Holtfreter (2000) where they found accounting students have more positive attitude in their course when relying on cooperative learning . The results indicate that participants in the cooperative learning approach group found economics subject as more interesting.37) on their social skill compared to the attitude mean score of the participants in the conventional group (3. Jensen and Owen. hypothesis 2 for attitude on communication skill is rejected.000). 1998. however. communication skill and social skill upon reliance on the learning approach. however. Further analysis shows that the difference between the two groups is significant (p=0. communication skill and social skill.006). The participants in the cooperative learning approach group have a more positive attitude towards the subject.
and (3) insight. Students in the same group must be of mixed ability. The findings of the literature review are pre-sented in two major discussions. Group Investigation is suitable for subjects like history and culture. and Student Team Learning (Kluge et al. involves primarily the mea-surement of accuracy and speed on timed type writing tests). The teaching of typing involves the development of behavioral changes. communication skill and social skill in order to succeed in their workplace in future. 1953). p. Student Team Learning is a CL model developed and researched by Robert Slavin at the John Hopkins University. individual accountability. The second is individual accountability that is the group cannot reach success unless every individual succeeds. stated. The key finding in this study is that cooperative learning approach could be a potential tool to prepare the students to the real world. gender. This method recommends using giving grades and not certificates for teams. in a review of the Jigsaw II method. and feedback assessment. In the trial and error approach to learning--the first of the three basic theories of learning. It is the spirit of all for one and one for all. Particularly. This focus was mainly induced because many studies have showed the superiority of CL methods over other methods of instruction. or similar narrative or descriptive material" (p.122). literature the instructional raw material for Jigsaw II should usually be a chapter. while the second deals with performance evalu-ation (which. develop a theoretical background and review research studies related to CL and reading achievement and motivation and also research studies related to Jigsaw II method and reading motivation and achievement. There are different CL methods but all of them share the following four features. which.273). facilitate the development of typing skills. as "composition of interlocking parts" (Cooper 1989. In summary. It is most appropriate for subjects as social studies. in which students of the same group discuss a controversial issue and reach consensus.276). many researchers are researching CL methods to check their feasibility and effectiveness. Group Investigation is a task specialization method developed by John Dewey and refined and researched by Shlomo and Yael Sharan and Rachel Hertz-Lazarowitz.. individual accountability. Group Investigation. 1995). The methods and structures of CL are categorized into various models including Learning Together. Students then produce a group product from the information contributed by each member. Literature related to the problem examined is reviewed in this chapter. Learning is the process by which an individual is able to change his or her behavior in some constructive manner (Skin-ner. in a typing class. Student performance was measured with respect to both accuracy and speed. This is done by providing them essential skills in becoming more pro-active in their work. Cooperative Learning Models Cooper (1989) defined cooperative learning as "an instructional task design that engages students actively in achieving a lesson objective through their own efforts and the efforts of their small team" (p. thinking skills. mastery. and student performance in a high school typing class. namely team reward. In this literature review we will shed some light on the main CL models. At present. It also recommends using cooperative controversy. and interpersonal and group skills. Learning Together is a CL method developed and researched by David and Roger Johnson at the University of Minnesota. in turn. and ethnicity. Cooperative Learning (CL) has been the center of a considerable body of research over the past few decades. The Jigsaw method belongs to this model (Slavin. variations in feedback assessment strategies. The Structural Approach is a cooperative learning model developed by Kagan. p. class building. The three basic theories of learning are (1) trial and error. First is positive interdependence. . the first of which considers learning styles. this method was selected in this study because of its appropriateness to be used with subjects like English. to the academics who are looking for better ideas and challenging ways to make their classes more interesting in planning productive activities for their students.approach. biography. story. Three concepts are central to this model. the findings in this study provides valuable insights on the benefits of cooperative learning approach in teaching economics subject to accounting students. positive interdependence. Curriculum Packages. Thus. if possible. namely face to face interaction. and equal opportunity for success. The Structural Approach. the individual learns by attempting different solutions to a problem until he or she discovers which one of the alternatives work best. The third essential feature is forming heterogeneous teams. "Jigsaw II can be used whenever the material is in a narrative form. It focuses on four elements. 1999). The final feature is equal opportunity for success for class and student which means that students contribute to their teams by improving their past performance. Students seek information form sources inside and outside the classroom. (2) conditioned response. It uses cooperative structures to serve purposes such as "team building. INDIVIDUAL APPROACH This study examined the relationships between student learning styles. This model considers lessons. information sharing and communication skills" (Cooper 1989. The role of the teacher in this approach is to give the student some direc-tion by leading her or him towards certain techniques which may assist in developing a problem solution. Slavin (1995).276).
Maddin. Wheeler and Ryan (1973) examined the effect of cooperative and competitive classroom environment on the attitudes and achievement of elementary school children in a study that lasted for 18 days. both groups performed equally well on other measures. reading vocabulary. Slavin's review (1990) concluded that cooperative learning methods could be effective on achievement only if they involve group goals and individual accountability. This encourages them to actively participate in their learning. help to shape the experiencesthe individual has with object. Stevens. 1986).people constantly form new attitudes and modify old ones when they are exposed to newinformation and new experiences (Adesina & Akinbobola. Cooperative activity encourages the learners to reflect upon their knowledge so as to make generalizations. From a motivational point of view. to their peers (Stevens. in addition to relating it to information already found in memory. organized throughexperience. Once established. Motivational theorists stress mainly the reward or goal structures under which students work (Slavin. They also extend their cultural awareness and their knowledge base when they work with students from different ethnic background. Cognitive theories emphasize the effort of working together. 1995). & Farnish 1991. to meet these personal goals. cognitive arguments will appear. and Farnish (1987) conducted three experimental studies comparing cooperative learning with the traditional methods and found out positive effects on scores from standardized tests of reading comprehension. where every person's effort hinders other's goal attainment. and attitudes .Theoretical Background: Researchers have used many theoretical models to explain the superiority of cooperative learning in comparison with traditional methods. knowledge. which fall into two main categories: developmental theories and cognitive elaboration theories (Slavin. scaffolding (prompts or support) and fading. Moreover. students will learn from one another because in their discussions of the content. competitively or individualistically and the decisions teachers make in structuring lessons can influence students¶ interactions with others. inadequate reasoning will be shown. and Farnish (1991) and Stevens. Cooperative learning fosters high-level reasoning and problem solving skills (Sharan. These theories are divided into two major categories: motivational and cognitive (Slavin. 1981. mechanic and spelling. In cooperative learning settings. they encourage each other's learning. language expression. Uttero (1988) stated that cooperative learning is conductive to activating students' prior knowledge. 1983). While occasional studies find particular advantage for high or low achieves. There are different cognitive theories. no significant difference was found on achievement. Slavin. Teachers have the opportunity of structuring lessons cooperatively. He also found out that cooperative learning methods work equally well for all types of students. where every person's effort assists others achievement. He found out that sixty-seven studies measured the effect of cooperative learning on student achievement. These studies established that when students work in heterogeneous groups and are rewarded. Results indicated the students in the cooperative classroom liked the class. and individualistic. Such an organization produces peer norms that curtail academic efforts. Introduction Attitudes are acquired through learning and can be changed through persuasionusing variety of techniques. Motivational theorists criticize traditional classroom structures because they are organized in a way that encourages competitive grading and informal reward system. which was done on 87 university students. boys or girl. As with earlier reviews by Slavin (1980. This is because one student's success reduces the opportunities of others success. 2005)Gagne (1979) defines attitudes as an internal state that influences the personal actions of an individual. the learners need to engage in some sort of cognitive restructuring or elaboration of the material (Dansereau. which they can transmit. students gradually take more responsibility as the cognitive support is decreased (Brown & Campione 1986). decision-making and conceptual attainment (Johnson & Johnson. Cooperative learning works equally well in urban. Slavin. liking one another and talking with one another however. exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual¶s responses to all objects and situations with which it is related. Cooperative Learning and Academic Achievement Slavin (1991) conducted a synthesis of research on cooperative learning. As for cognitive elaboration theories. In cognitive apprenticeship. subject or person. research in cognitive psychology has found that if information is to be retained in long term memory. 1995). they achieve more than students who are in traditionally taught classes. a number of cognitive theorists have suggested that cooperative learning can be an important element of cognitive apprenticeship (Brown & Campione. 1990). Cognitive apprenticeship involves initial instruction and models. group members need to help their teammates do whatever makes the group succeed by urging them to give their maximum energy and effort (Johnson & Johnson. 1995). Heconsiders attitudes as a mental and neutral state of readiness. where the individual's goal-oriented efforts do not have any effects on other's goal accomplishment. 1985). sharing information. However. The basic assumption of the developmental theories is that children's interaction around appropriate tasks increases their mastery of critical concepts (Damon. and higher quality understandings will arise (Cohen. Therefore. 1984). 1983). Johnson and Johnson (1991) identified three goal structures: cooperative. cooperative goal structures establish a situation where the only way to attain goals is through the group's success. 1990). In fact. 1980). Although attitude changes gradually. which help them in the mastery of complex cognitive activity (Woodward. They explain strategies to each other using their own words. 1995). the great majority find equal benefits to all types of students (Slavin. The sharing of ideas and opinions contributes to the completion of high-level tasks such as divergent thinking. Furthermore. Woodward. 1983) and Newmann and Thompson (cited in Slavin. 1991). he recognized attitude as a major factor in subject choice. 1994). coaching. Children discuss and share ideas with others. Slavins. 1990). the two longest studies of Group Investigation conducted by Sharan and Shachar (1988) also found significant effects on academic achievement and high-level learning. reported that although students in cooperative learning groups outperformed individual learners in many measures. He also found out that high achievers gain from cooperative learning just as much as low and average achievers. 1977. when students work towards a common goal. For example. and show norms favoring academic achievement (Slavin. observing and practicing in cognitive tasks help the learners internalize the cognitive functions they are trying to master (Vygosty. competitive. McGuire s (1992) study. Slavin. suburban and rural schools (Slavin 1990). cited in Slavin. peers supply each other with encouragement and assistance. 1990). reinforce one another's academic efforts. From the developmental theorists' point of view. Attitudes.
Also. group rewards and individual accountability within the group are essential. According to them the formal group ranges from one class period to several weeks. The expository method is teacher-centered. Alao (1990) showed that there is positive correlation between attitudes and performance in the science subjects. One of the elements of cooperative learning is positive interdependence. According to Odili (1990). A base cooperative learning group task extends for at least a year. explaining it. This creates a positive cycle of good performance building higher self esteem which in turn leads to more interest in the subject and higher performance. Teachers may raise questions to help direct students or explain concepts. In teaching-learning processes. competition. which influence performance in class. thus creating an atmosphere of achievement (Ronsini. From a motivational perspective. 1986). 2000). the current educational system in Nigeria . Therefore. This group ensures that students are actively involved in the intellectual work of organizing materials. Each member of a team is responsible not only for learning what is taught but also for helping team mates to learn. where students perceive that their success or failure lies within their working together as a group (Johnson. According to Johnson and Johnson (1999). The motivational theories of cooperative learning emphasize the students incentive to do academic work. competitive learning is one in which students¶ work against each other to achieve a good grade. Tjosvold. the class in cooperative learning is divided into groups. The mode of delivery for physics lessons at senior secondary school in Nigeria is by expository. summarizing it. student-peripheral teaching approach in which the teacher delivers a pre-planned lesson to the students with or without the use of instructional materials. the two major theoretical perspectives related to cooperative learning are motivational and cognitive. When students are successful they view the subject matter with a very positive attitude because their self-esteem is enhanced. Johnson & Holubec. Marine and Johnson (1977) found that cooperative strategies promoted positive attitudes toward both didactic and inquiry methods of teaching science and students taught by cooperative strategies believed they had learned more from the lesson than did students taught by competitive strategies. and their attitudes toward education. According to Slavin (1987). 1986). a natural tendency to socialize with the students on a professional level is created by approaches to problem solving and about activities and attitudes. Informal cooperative learning group task from a few minutes to a whole class period .(Carson.and the teachers uses them during direct teaching to focus student¶s attention on the materials to be learnt. Motivational theories related to cooperative learning focus on reward and goals structures. students in a group help each other in learning the content. It exits when one students. each with students of different levels of ability. and not competitiveness. goal is achieved and all other students fail to reach the goal. cooperative goal structure creates a situation in which the only way group members can attain their personals goals is when the group is successful (Slavin. probably due to the fact that teachers are unable to satisfy their aspiration or goals.Cooperative learning is a mode of learning in which students work in small groups to achieve a purpose. an opportunity is created whereby the teacher can talk to the students directly or in small groups. and each group has specific work to do. 1990). Johnson and Holubec¶s (1986) theory identified the three types of cooperative learning groups as formal. The results of the study indicated that student cooperativeness. Cooperative learning is a successful teaching strategy in which small teams. use a variety of learning activities to improve their understanding of a subject. In addition. cooperative learning experiences promote more positive attitudes toward the instructional experience than competitive or individualistic methodologies Johnson and Ahlgren (1976) examined the relationships between student¶s attitudes toward cooperation. was positive related to motivation. Here there is an emphasis on the importance of group work. in order to attain their personal goals. The further state that competitive learning can be interpersonal (between individuals) or inter-group (between groups). and integrating it into existing conceptual structures. while the cognitive theories emphasize the effects of working together. to learn. It provides students with long-term committed relationship. informal and base. 2006). Also. Johnson & Holubec. However. Johnson. Schunk and Hanson (1985) suggest that the attitude of pupils is likely to play a significant part in any satisfactory explanation of variable level of performance shown by students in their school science subject. The formal cooperative learning group as used in this study. but achievement is judged individually. students are likely to encourage members within the group to do whatever will help the group to succeed and to help one another with a group task. According to Johnson and Johnson (1989). the modern expository method involves more that talking and reading about science for it allows some interaction between the teacher and the students in terms of asking and being asked questions on the topic of discussion (Akinbobola. If competitiveness seems to be so unfavourable to success why is to so predominate in classroom? Competitive learning is most appropriate when students need to view learned materials (Johnson. 1990). Ogunleye (1993) in his finding reports that many students developed negative attitudes to science learning.
78 with multiple regression squared of . This was then followed by competitive with individualistic learning strategy being seen to be least effective in facilitating students. competitive and individualistic learning strategies is rejected. The multiple regression analysis (R)is .05 Alpha level. Hence the null hypothesis which stated that there is no significant difference among the attitude of physics students taught with cooperative. competitive and individualistic learning strategies. Table 4: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the attitude of male and female students taught with . Table 2: Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA) of the attitude scores of physics students taught with cooperative. competitive and individualistic learning strategies. Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA) is considered in order to determine the specific gain of the learning strategies on students¶ attitude towards physics. Hypothesis Two There is no significant difference between the attitude of male and female physics students taught with cooperative. competitive and individualistic learning strategies. Table 1: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of the attitude of students taught with cooperative competitive and individualistic learning strategies The analysis in Table 1 shows that the calculated F-value of the main effects of 20. Also students show more positive attitude towards competitive than individualistic learning strategy. The analysis is presented in Table 4. competition is valued over cooperative learning strategies (Akinbobola. competitive and individualistic learning strategies. Derivation from the analysis in Table 2 indicates that students show more positive attitude towards cooperative learning strategy than competitive and individualistic learning strategy. 2004). attitude towards physics.57 is greater than the critical F-value of 3. Therefore in Nigeria and with the present educational system. (1) To determine if there is a difference in the attitude of physics students who have been taught with cooperative. Purpose of the Study This study aims at achieving the following objectives.91 at P<. As shown in the Table 3. cooperative learning strategy was the most effective in facilitating students¶ learning attitude towards physics. 2004). cooperative learning being a new strategy for physics teaching in Nigeria has not been frequently used by teachers (Akinbobola. competitive and individualistic learning strategies.61 This implies that 61% of the total variance in the attitude of students toward physics can be attributed to the influence of cooperative. Results Hypothesis One There is no significant difference among the attitude of physics students taught with cooperative.is based upon competition among the schools. Since there is difference among the attitude of students taught with difference learning strategies. competitive and individualistic learning strategies. (2) There is no significant difference between the attitude of male and female physics students taught with cooperative. Hence. competitive and individualistic learning strategies. (2) To find out if there would be a difference in the attitude of male and female physics students taught with cooperative. competitive and individualistic learning strategies Hypotheses (1) There is no significant difference among the attitude of physics students taught with cooperative.
cooperative learning strategy does not discriminate against sexes Recommendations Based on the findings of the study and conclusion reached. (3) Cooperative learning strategy should be used in teaching various concepts in physics starting from the secondary schools and continuing in tertiary institutions. Therefore. students are trained on how to interact positively. Evidence support for the use of cooperative learning in physics according to Akinbobola (2004) has shown that it develops higher-level thinking skills. they view the subject with a very positive attitude because their self-esteem is enhanced. Also. so that teaching it will become more rewarding to teachers. competitive and individualistic learning strategies The analysis in Table 4 shows that the calculated F-value of the gender main effect of 0. This is not surprising because in cooperative learning. workshops and conferences should be organized for physics teachers to appraise them with the use of cooperative learning strategy. competitive and individualistic learning strategies. Hence the improved students¶ attitude in physics will enhance students¶ performance in the subject.05 alpha level. . increases students. This study was in line with the findings of Johnson and Johnson (1989) that cooperative learning strategy promotes more positive attitudes toward the instructional experience than competitive or individualistic strategies. The result of hypothesis two indicated no significant difference in the attitude of male and female students taught with cooperative. When students are successful. February 2009 7 physics students taught with cooperative. 1. retention and fosters team building. . enjoy and create more positive attitude towards Physics. the null hypothesis stating a non-significant difference between the attitude of male and female Australian Journal of Teacher Education Vol 34. competitive and individualistic learning strategies is retained.012 is less than the critical F-value of 3. the following recommendations were made: (1) Physics teachers should adopt cooperative learning strategy as an effective learning strategy in order to enhance students¶ attitude towards the subject. Students showed more positive attitudes toward cooperative than competitive learning strategy and also students showed more positive attitude toward competitive than individualistic learning strategy. Discussion The result of hypothesis one indicated that a significant difference exists among the attitude of physics students taught with cooperative competitive and individualistic learning strategies. Using cooperative learning strategy will enable the students to understand. The improved attitude is due to the novelty of the approach. (4) Seminars. This result was in line with Udousoro (1999) findings that gender and ability of students failed to have any significant effect in the cooperative group. Conclusion The results of this study showed that cooperative learning strategy is more effective in enhancing students¶ attitude towards physics than competitive and individualistic learning strategies. resolve disputes through compromise or mediation and encourage the best performance of each member for the benefit of the group.91 at p<.cooperative. (2) Physics teachers should arrange their laboratories and classrooms in such a way as to give room for effective interaction among students.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.