PART ONE

INTRODUCTION

Cooperation is the basic characteristic of human beings. Most of our attitudes and
values are formed by discussing, what we know or think of others. However it appears
that present educational systems consist of classrooms with competitive goal structures.
In a competitive structure, a student’s success depends on the failure of other students.
Students have to compete with their fellow students, right from the stage of admission to
primary classes up to the highest level in secondary classes. Excessive competition in
classrooms results in maladjustment of students. Students are always a step far from
cooperation, while the survival of human kind apparently is based on cooperation. A well-
established principle of social psychology is that people working together on a common
goal can accomplish more than people working alone. Based on this principle,
cooperative learning strategies for classroom use have been developed and used.

Cooperative learning is an approach to instruction in which students work in small

groups to help another learn. Unlike a competitive classroom, students work together to
achieve common successes. In other words, students in a cooperative classroom sink or
swim together. While discussing with each other, cognitive conflicts may arise, which
leads to the development of reasoning skills and higher quality of understanding of the
subject. In this method students are encouraged to work in groups on academic tasks
with a common goal.

Traditional classroom setting does not prepare students for work and social tasks
that they will face as adults. Cooperative learning can help students interact with each
other, generate alternative ideas and make inferences through discussion. Thus, it
provides the ingredients for higher thought processes to occur and sets them to work on
realistic and adult-like tasks.

Cooperative learning method, which attracts the attention of many educators,

constitutes an alternative to the traditional learning methods. Since cooperative learning
is a group working, it is similar to the set working method. But every group working is not
cooperative learning. A group working becomes cooperative learning if every member of
the group knows that he or she can't be successful unless the other members are
successful.

The effort of a student to reach his goal has,

a) a supportive effect in the cooperative case,

b) a obstructive effect in the competitive case,
c) a neutral effect in the individualistic case on the other students.

In order to construct a lesson with cooperative method, five basic principles must be
provided.

1) positive interdependence,
 2) face-to-face primitive interaction,
3) individual accountability,
4) the appropriate use of social skills,
5) processing how well the group is functioning.

Cooperative learning method includes many techniques. Some of these are;

 Learning together,
 Teams-games-tournaments,
 Group investigation,
 Constructive controversy,
 Jigsaw producers.

In this study, cooperative learning method was used to determine the significant
effect in the performance assessment achievement of Science, Technology and
Engineering Program (STEp) students, in particular to Grade 9 level, for the subject
Technology and Livelihood Education Drafting Technology at Moonwalk National High
School for school year 2016-2017.

STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The main purpose of this study is to determine the effect of cooperative learning
on the performance assessment achievement of Grade 9 STEp students in the subject
Technology and Livelihood Education Drafting Technology at Moonwalk National High
School.

This study seeks to answer the following questions:

1. What is the level of performance assessment achievement in T.L.E. Drafting

Technology of the students in the experimental and control groups in the Pretest
and Posttest?
2. What are mean gain scores of the experimental group and control group?
3. Is there a significant difference in the mean gain scores of the experimental and
control group?

Page | 2
 PART TWO

PARADIGM OF THE STUDY

Research Paradigm

Independent Variables Dependent Variable

Cooperative Learning Students’ Performance

Assessment Achievement
in TLE 9 Drafting
Vs.

Pretest
Traditional Group
Learning
Posttest

Figure 1. The Paradigm shows the effect of Cooperative Learning Instruction against
Traditional Approach of Learning on the performance assessment
achievement in TLE 9 Drafting Technology.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS

The hypotheses to be tested in this study are as follows:

Ho = There is no significant effect of Cooperative learning on the Performance

Assessment achievement of STEp Grade 9 students in TLE Drafting Technology.

H1 = There is a significant effect of Cooperative learning on the Performance Assessment

achievement of STEp Grade 9 students in TLE Drafting Technology.

Page | 3
PART THREE

DATA PRESENTATION
(ANALYSIS, PRESENTATIONS, AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA)

Statistical Treatment of Data

For the interpretation and analysis of the data, the following statistical tools were utilized:

1. Weighted Arithmetic Mean was used to determine the level of students’

pretest and posttest mean.
2. Standard Deviation was utilized to determine how far each score is from
the mean.
3. t – test as computed to determine the significant difference of the two
independent variables.

Data Presentation
Sixty (60) BTTE students were selected for this experimental research. BTTE-4C
which has 30 students was determined as the Experimental Group. On the other hand,
BTTE-4B which also has 30 students was determined as the Control Group. (Table 1)

Table 1
Grouping Dispersion
Group Method Section N
Cooperative
Experimental BTTE 4C 30
Learning
Traditional
Control BTTE 4B 30
Group Learning
Total 2 2 60

The Experimental group from BTTE 4C of thirty (30) students underwent the
implementation of the cooperative learning method; while the Control group from BTTE
4B of thirty (30) students used the traditional group learning method. The number of thirty
(30) participants for each group was equal. There were a total of sixty (60) participants
for this experimental research.

But before cooperative learning took effect for the experimental group, the two (2)
groups took a Pretest examination for the subject Assessment of Student Learning 2
(BTTE10) which was a 50-item multiple choice type of exam. The result was presented
on a table. (Table 2)

Table 2
Result of the Pretest of the Experimental and Control Group
Pretest Scores Pretest Scores

Page | 4
Student Student
Experimental Control Experimental Control
Number Number
1 45 40 16 48 45
2 40 42 17 48 40
3 35 30 18 40 40
4 47 45 19 23 40
5 25 25 20 46 26
6 30 32 21 33 38
7 40 47 22 36 40
8 47 47 23 23 29
9 42 41 24 35 29
10 40 45 25 48 40
11 35 38 26 48 45
12 38 40 27 41 42
13 42 31 28 38 38
14 40 49 29 39 20
15 35 28 30 32 23

Table 2 shows the result of the BTTE students’ examination for pretest in Assessment of
Student Learning 2 (BTTE 10) presented according to their student number for each
group.

Table 3
Pretest Mean score and Standard Deviation
Descriptive
Group Mean SD
Interpretation

Experimental 38.633 7.213 Very Good

Control 37.167 7.879 Very Good

Legend: 40-45 Excellent

33-39 Very Good
26-32 Good
19-26 Fair
1-18 Needs Improvement

For the Pretest, the experimental group yielded a mean of 38.633, which was a bit
higher from 37.167 mean of the control group. Both groups were “Very Good” for the
descriptive interpretation. However, the standard deviations indicated that experimental

Page | 5
group was less heterogeneous with (S.D. = 7.213) as compared to the control group with
(S.D. = 7.879).

40 38.633 37.167
35

30

25

20 Mean
15 S.D.

10 7.213 7.879

0
Experimental Control

Figure 2. The chart shows no significant differences of the Pretest Mean and
Standard Deviations between the two (2) groups.

This simply means that the two (2) groups do not significantly differ in their initial
knowledge in the subject Assessment of Student Learning 2. They are, therefore, equal
in academic abilities before the treatment at all.

After the Pretest, the experimental group was given a treatment of using the
cooperative learning method. The group was divided into ten (10) subgroups, each having
three (3) members. During the group work and study, group members help, assist,
encourage, and support each other's efforts to learn. Teamwork skills were emphasized—
members were taught and expected to use collaborative skills. Thus, leadership shared
by all members. Students have time and were given a procedure to analyze how well their
group was functioning, how well they were using the appropriate social skills, and how to
improve the quality of their work together.

While on the other hand, the control group used the traditional group learning. The
group was divided into six (6) subgroups, each having five (5) members. Within group
activities, group members compete with each other and withhold information—“If you
succeed, I lose." Only individual accomplishments were rewarded. There was also no
processing of how well the group was functioning or the quality of its work.

After one (1) school week of studying, a scheduled Posttest examination of 50-
item multiple choice type of exam was given to the two (2) groups for the subject
Assessment of Student of Learning 2. The result was presented on a table. (Table 4)

Page | 6
Table 4
Result of the Posttest of the Experimental and Control Group
Student Posttest Scores Student Posttest Scores
Number Experimental Control Number Experimental Control
1 48 45 16 50 42
2 48 39 17 50 45
3 45 30 18 48 39
4 50 45 19 39 45
5 38 23 20 50 28
6 43 33 21 41 40
7 45 50 22 46 39
8 45 44 23 35 25
9 45 38 24 46 30
10 45 45 25 50 40
11 39 40 26 50 47
12 45 38 27 47 40
13 47 31 28 44 39
14 47 45 29 46 22
15 41 25 30 39 20

Table 4 shows the result of the BTTE students’ examination for posttest in Assessment
of Student Learning 2 (BTTE 10) presented according to their student number for each
group.

Table 5
Posttest Mean score and Standard Deviation
Descriptive
Group Mean SD
Interpretation

Experimental 45.067 4.093 Excellent

Control 37.067 8.325 Very Good

Legend: 40-45 Excellent

33-39 Very Good
26-32 Good
19-26 Fair
Page | 7
 1-18 Needs Improvement

For the Posttest, the experimental group yielded a mean of 45.067, which was
significantly higher from 37.067 mean of the control group. It gave the experimental group
an “Excellent” in descriptive interpretation, while the control group remained “Very Good”.
However, the standard deviations indicated that experimental group was again
heterogeneous with (S.D. = 4.093) as compared to the control group with (S.D. = 8.325).

50
45.067
45
40 37.067
35
30
25 Mean
20 S.D.
15
10
8.325
4.093
5
0
Experimental Control

Figure 3. The chart shows significant differences of the Posttest Mean and
Standard Deviations between the two (2) groups.

This time, there is a significant difference seen in the performance of the

experimental group from the control group after the treatment. The experimental group
achieved much higher mean of 45.067 than 37.067 mean from the control group.

Using the mean scores of the experimental and control groups, a gain score
analysis was conducted. (Table 6)

Table 6
Mean Gain Scores of the Experimental and Control Groups

Group Pretest Posttest Gain Score

Experimental

Mean 38.633 45.067 6.434

SD 7.213 4.093

Page | 8
 Control

Mean 37.167 37.067 -0.1

SD 7.879 8.325
Total

Mean 75.8 82.134 6.334

SD 15.092 12.418

The experimental group had a posttest mean score of 45.067 and a pretest mean
score of 38.633, which resulted to a highly significant positive (+) gain score of 6.434. A
positive gain score indicated that the posttest score was greater than the pretest score.

On the other hand, the control group had a Posttest mean score of 37.067 and a
pretest mean score of 37.167, which resulted to a negative (-) gain score. A negative gain
score indicated that the posttest score was less than the pretest score.

50 45.067
45
38.633
40 37.167 37.067

35
30 Posttest
25 Pretest
20 Gain Score
15
10 6.434

5
0
-0.1
-5 Experimental Control

Figure 4. The chart shows the mean gain scores between the experimental
and control group.

This means that experimental group performed significantly better than the control
group on the posttest for achieving a 6.434 positive gain score. Yet the control group did
not excel on the posttest for obtaining a -0.1 negative gain score.

From the gathered data of the pretest and posttest, a parametric test of t-test at
0.05 level of significance was used to determine the significant difference of the two (2)
groups. (Table 7)

Table 7
T-test results in Assessment of Student Learning 2 pretest & posttest exams

Page | 9
Compared
df Mean SD t-value Significance
Groups
Pretest
58 0.75 .05
Experimental 38.633 7.213

Control 37.167 7.879

___________
Mean 1.466
difference
Posttest
58 4.72 .05
Experimental 45.067 4.093

Control 37.067 8.325

___________
Mean 8.0
difference

The pretest had mean score of 38.633 and 37.167 from experimental and control
group, respectively. It resulted to a mean difference of 1.466 which was not significant at
0.75 t-value with 58 degrees of freedom at .05 level of significance. This simply implies
that the two (2) groups do not significantly differ in academic achievement before the
treatment.

While the mean difference of 8.0 between the mean score of 45.067 from the
experimental group and the mean score of 37.067 from the control group was highly
significant at 4.72 t-value, with 58 degrees of freedom at .05 probability level.

This further asserts the superiority of cooperative learning method than the
traditional group learning method.

Level of Significance
α = .05
df = n1 + n 2 – 2
= 30 + 30 – 2
= 58
t .05 = 2.00 t-tabular value at .05

Since the t-computed value of 4.72 is greater than t-tabular value of 2.00 at .05
level of significance with 58 degrees of freedom, the hypothesis stating “there is no
significant effect of cooperative learning on the academic achievement of BTTE students
in Assessment of Student Learning 2” was rejected in favor of the research hypothesis.

Therefore, there is a significant effect of cooperative learning on the academic

achievement of BTTE students in the subject Assessment of Student Learning 2
(BTTE10).
PART FOUR

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, & RECOMMENDATIONS

The treatment of data revealed the following salient findings:

1. The performance of the Experimental and Control Groups.

The experimental and control groups obtained pretest mean scores of 38.633 and
37.167, respectively. The standard deviations indicated that the experimental group was

Page | 10
less heterogeneous with (S.D. = 7.213) as compared to the control group with (S.D. =
7.879). However, in the posttest examination, the experimental group yielded a mean of
45.067, while the control group got a mean of 37.067, which meant that the experimental
group scored significantly higher than the traditional group. Again, the experimental group
was less heterogeneous with (S.D. = 4.093) as compared to the control group with (S.D.
= 8.325).

2. Comparison of test results.

The experimental group achieved a slightly higher mean score of 38.633 in the
pretest, in comparison with the pretest mean score of the control group of 37.167, with a
mean difference 1.466 which was not significant at 0.75 t-value with 58 degrees of
freedom at .05 level of significance. The posttest results indicated that the experimental
group obtained significantly higher mean score of 45.067 than the control group with
37.067 mean score. The mean difference of 8.0 was highly significant at 4.72 t-value, with
58 degrees of freedom at .05 level of significance.

The superiority of the cooperative learning method over the traditional method can
be explained on the basis of several mechanisms. In traditional classrooms individual
competition exists where failure of an individual plays an important role in the success of
another. So, instead of helping others, students try to “pull the legs” of their peers, so as
to enhance the chances of their success. Competition also exists in a set up cooperative
learning of classrooms but unlike the traditional set up, there is inter-group competition.
In cooperative learning an individual is not the winner. It is the group which loses or wins.
The members of a particular group help each other to promote the success of their group
members. In addition to this, cooperative learning emphasizes group rewards. The
rewards are given on the basis of the sum-total of the performances of individual members
in the group. Thus individual accountability is ensured. Individual accountability ensures
that each member puts his/her maximum effort for the group rewards. For this members
try to make sure that all have understood the assigned material. Cooperative regard
structures create a situation in which the only way group members can get their personal
goals is if the group is successful. Students in cooperative learning value the success of
the group so they encourage and help one another to achieve, and this factor is absent
in a traditional classroom. This might have been the reason for the significantly greater
academic achievement in the subject Assessment of Student Learning 2 from the
experimental group.
There were the results and discussions reached by means of findings obtained in
the research done for testing the effects of cooperative learning method and traditional
group learning method on BTTE students’ achievement in the subject Assessment of
Student Learning 2. According to the results, in this research;

1) It was observed that cooperative learning method was more effective than
traditional method in Assessment of Student Learning 2.

2) It was noticed that the level which was concerned with academic achievement of
the students in the experimental group in which cooperative learning method was
applied, was higher than the level of the students in the control group in which
traditional group learning was utilized.

With the help of conclusions obtained in the research, cooperative learning method
was useful than using traditional group learning method. In cooperative learning method,
the students permanently connects with each other and their teachers for learning and
teaching, whereas in traditional teaching method, there was an atmosphere that the
connection was less and the teachers was at the center.

In cooperative learning, the students explain their opinions; present the alternative
strategies and approximations that help them to understand concepts. When the students

Page | 11
explain, transfer and question, their opinions, they are peachier in traditional class
atmosphere. By studying cooperatively the students gain self-confidence. They
understand more by cooperating in the process of deciding with their friends. When one
of the students facilitate during group discussion, the others control themselves, which
creates a conducive learning environment.

Therefore, cooperative learning method is a strong base for learning.

The following suggestions are presented:

1) Cooperative learning method should be used, stressed out, and given importance.
2) Cooperative learning method and its techniques should be put in the curriculum
and should be enacted during class.
3) Subjects such as Assessment of Student Learning 2 (BTTE 10) should be
designed to use cooperative learning method in teaching and learning processes.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

A. Internet References:
http://www.jeremymiles.co.uk/misc/tables/t-test.html
http://www.tojet.net/articles/337.pdf
http://www.elsevier.com/authored_subject_sections/S05/S05_357/top/li.pdf
http://www.recsam.edu.my/R&D_Journals/YEAR2003/52-60.pdf
http://www.umdnj.edu/idsweb/…/pretest_postest_gainscores.htm
http://www.experiment-resources.com/pretest-posttest-designs.html#ixzz1BcLLc9Ik
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_control_group_and_experi
mental_group#ixzz1BcLrtNr5
http://www.okstate.edu/ag/…/newpage2.htm
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc

Page | 12