The findings indicate an increase in terms of students test scores since students were exposed

to various formative assessments and performance tasks such as answering worksheets after
every discussion though it was complied individually. The result is in agreement with Ong,
Cabansag, and Sacolles (2016) that the number of formative assessments has a significant
impact of the resulting test grades of Grade 11 students. The construct of scaffolding is explored
as probable foundation for the efficacy of increasing number of formative assessments being
provded; considering such assessments as supportive activities capable of influencing students’
achievement reinforces the critical role of formative assessments in fostering students’
competencies towards the targeted standards.

Moreover, such improvement is also similar to Wang, Martin, Lambert, and Pugalee
(n.d) where the development of students’ subject abilities observed in terms of monthly growth
was influenced by the number of formative assessments administered in a particular set up.
More so, such results may also be attributed to the concept of scaffolding as proposed by
Christmas, Kudzai, and Josiah (2013) as operationalization of the Zone of Proximal
Development Theory. This indicates that additional practice would equate to improved resulting
grades (Mayfield and Cjhase, 2002).

The significant gains of the GAS on their achievement test were supported by Lave and
Wanger (2000) and Alijanian (2012) in considering STAD a practice that can improve students’
learning. Due to the socially oriented lessons taught and learned through small group
interaction, the participants in the STAD teaching approach were able to demonstrate better
achievement than the performance of students exposed to conventional teaching method. The
possible reasons to account for the significant gains in the experimental group could be
synthesized into the following categories: (1) the expansion of engagement of students in the
lesson through comprehensible input, interaction, and output; (2) the stimulating patterns of
positive reinforcement, and (3) the complement communicatory learning context. These three
components of STAD seemed to contribute to the students’ academic achievement, as
demonstrated in the results of this study.

Further, Malek, Hall, and Hodges (n.d) affirmed that cooperative and active learning
methods have statistically significant and positive effects, compared to traditional lecture
methods, in improving student achievement and information retention, toward learning in
various fields and at various educational level (Johnson et.al. 2002; Yamarik, 2007). Yamarik
(2007) gives three explanations in cooperative learning groups performed better on exams than
the students in the traditional lecture group (1) Student-teacher interaction increased, (2) Group
studying was increased, and (3) Greater interest in the material was “sparked” by working in
small groups that instigate to the positive academic achievement of students.

Achievement gains were observed in the STAD experimental group when cooperative learning
experience was implemented. The aforementioned findings find support in Ocampo and
Ocampo’s (2015) contention that students who have undergone STAD significantly improved in
their major tests and have better academic achievement compared with students who were
exposed to conventional methods of teaching. The findings Lavasani, et.al (2011) as cited by
Laguador (2014) also has bearing on the study that students learn best in an active learning
approach (such as STAD) that improves students’ performance. Moreover, according to
Awofala, Fatade, and Ola-Oluwa (2012), the STAD cooperative strategy enhanced students’
mastery of subject content at both comprehension and application levels than at knowledge
level of cognition. Also, Songco (2002) stated that group work approaches give a higher level of
mastery and better retention of what has been learned. It only proved that if the teacher involves
the students in the classroom activities, they will learn more and they will remember what they
have learned because it is said to be student-centered where they are responsible for their own
learning. Orlich (2004) also mentioned the importance of an active learning environment that if
student is active in the learning environment, learning will take place.

A study conducted by Slavin (1987), he examined 63 of the 70 studies that measured

the effects on student achievement. Teachers and classes that participated in the study were
randomly selected to be a cooperative or non-cooperative classroom. According to Slavin, of the
63 studies conducted on class achievement, 36 or 57% of the results found greater academic
improvements in cooperative learning classes than in control classrooms. Furthermore,
Ravencroft (2007) expressed that the interaction of students working in groups improved
academic achievement and enhanced study skills.
Another study conducted by Wyk (2010) reported the impact of STAD on students’
performances in economic literacy. Results showed that the experimental group had a 16.13
score increased from the pretest to posttest compared to the control group. The experimental
group, which were exposed to STAD, had a statistically significant increase in economic literacy
levels compared to the control group.
Correspondingly, the result of the study of Slagle (2009) in his research entitled “The use
of the cooperative learning strategy STAD to promote academic achievement in a high school
social studies class”, suggested a slight increase in academic achievement among most
secondary social studies participants after the implementation of the cooperative learning
strategy STAD in a social studies classroom.
Majoka, et al (2010) in their research conducted, also discovered that both the
experimental (N=28) and the control groups (N=25) were almost equal in mathematical base at
the beginning of the experiment. The classroom observation indicated that the students of
experimental group were engaged in learning at a higher level as compared to the counterpart
students of control group. Furthermore, the experimental group outscored significantly the
control group on posttest showing the obvious supremacy of cooperative learning over
traditional method of teaching. On retention test, again, the experimental group was a little bit
superior in achievement but there was no significant difference between the mean scores of the
experimental and the control groups.
Additionally, in the study investigated by Adesoji & Ibraheem (2009), the findings of their
study reveals that there were significant main effects of treatment on students achievement and
attitude (F=190.58; P <0.05) and (F=379.275, P<0.05) respectively. Mathematics ability in
chemistry had significant main effects on achievement (F=12.971; P <0.05) and on attitude
(F=3.678; P <0. 05). The interaction effects of treatment and mathematics ability was significant
for achievement (F=8.146; P <0.05) and also for attitude (F=7.578; P <0.05).