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
Vs. in TLE 9 Drafting

Traditional Group Learning Pretest

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
Experimenta Cooperative
BTTE 4C 30
l 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
Student Pretest Scores Student Pretest Scores

Page | 4
Number Experimental Control Number Experimental Control
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
group was less heterogeneous with (S.D. = 7.213) as compared to the control group
with (S.D. = 7.879).

Page | 5
 38.63
40 37.17
35

30

25

20 Mean
S.D.
15

10 7.21 7.88

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
1-18 Needs Improvement

Page | 7
 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
45.07
45
40 37.07

35
30
25 Mean
20 S.D.
15
8.33
10
4.09
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 45.07

38.63
37.17 37.07
40

30
Posttest
20 Pretest
Gain Score
6.43
10

-0.1
0
Experimental Control
-10

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 + n2 – 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.

Page | 10
 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 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.

Page | 11
 In cooperative learning, the students explain their opinions; present the
alternative strategies and approximations that help them to understand concepts. When
the students 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