Researching Teaching Methodologies in The Classroom

This article was downloaded by: [Karolinska Institutet, University Library]
On: 10 October 2014, At: 02:53

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK
Journal of Teaching in Social

Work
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wtsw20
Researching Teaching
Methodologies in the Classroom
a a
Bruce Dalton & Austin Chuck Kuhn
a
College of Social Work , University of South
Carolina , USA
Published online: 13 Oct 2008.
To cite this article: Bruce Dalton & Austin Chuck Kuhn (1998) Researching Teaching
Methodologies in the Classroom, Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 17:1-2, 169-184,
DOI: 10.1300/J067v17n01_12
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J067v17n01_12
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Karolinska Institutet, University Library] at 02:53 10 October 2014
Researching Teaching Methodologies
in the Classroom
Bruce Dalton
Austin Chuck Kuhn
ABSTRACT. This paper presents the findings of a research project

comparing the effectiveness o f two teaching models used in a gradu-
ate social work practice course. Two tcaching methodologies, the
lecture/discussion model and the cooperative learning model, werc
used in two separate sections of Foundations of Social Work Prac-
tice, a first semester graduate course in the M S W program at a large
public univcrsity.
A pretest/posttest comparison group model was used. One section
of this coursc used a cooperative learning modcl while the other used
the lecture/discussion model. Both sections spent the same amount
of time on the material in the knowlcdge questionnaire and adminis-
tered the posttest and follow-up on the same date. T-test and effect
size statistics were used which demonstrated the greater efficacy of
the cooperative learning modcl, particularly on long term retention
of information.
I n the course o f describing the teaching models used in the study,
the cooperative learning model and its history i s discussed in some
detail. It i s expected that after this introduction many social work
educators will be motivated to use thc model in their own class-
rooms.
This paper further serves as a model for how instructors can
effcctively conduct small scale research in their own academic set-
ting. It is an example of how educational research can be donc
expeditiously and with limited resources. [Article copies available for
a Jee from The Haworth Documeril Delivery Service: 1-800-342-9678.
E-mail address: getitiJo@hawortlipressi,rc.corn]
Bruce Dalton and Austin Chuck Kuhn are affiliated with the College of Social
Work, University of South Carolina.
Journal of Teaching in Social Work, Vol. 17(1/2) 1998
0 1998 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 169
170 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL WORK
Cooperative learning is a teaching methodology which uses structurcd

exercises whereby students are involved in teaching and learning from each
othcr. As a methodology the use of cooperative learning spans thousands of
years. For example, in order to understand the Talmud, it was stated that onc
needed a learning partner. Seneca, the Roman philosopher, advocated what
we now conceptualize as cooperative learning: “Qui Docet Disdet” (when
you teach, you learn twice) (Johnson and Johnson, 19923). More recently
thc cooperative learning approach has been effectively used in schools of

education and management (McEnerney, 1992). Unfortunately, the use of
the cooperative learning model in the social work classroom has not been
reported in the literature. Whcther or not cooperative learning strategies are
actually being used in the social work classroom is unclcar. Thc applica-
tion of the cooperative learning model, however, is consistent with thc
philosophical base of social work: empowerment; identification and rec-
ognition of strengths; and appreciation of the knowledge and skills the
students bring to the classroom. What is clear is that the literature should
retlect the innovative techniques being used in the social work classrooms
and that measurcment of their effectiveness should be reported.
The purpose of this study is to compare cooperative learning and lec-
ture/discussion methods of teaching and to demonstrate how educational
research can be conducted both expeditiously and with limited resources
in the classroom. This study was conducted in the first generalist practice
social work course required of students enrolled in a large, public, gradu-
ate social work program, located in a southeastern university. In this study,
thc cffects of cooperative learning on posttest and follow up scores on an
original questionnairc on social work history and selected exam questions
were examined. The research question guiding this study is: What is thc
difference in effectiveness of the two teaching methodologies, traditional
lecture/discussion and cooperative learning? Three hypotheses were tested.
Hypothesis One: Students in the cooperative learning classroom will
have a significantly greater improvement in short tcrm knowlcdgc
recall on the social work history questionnaire between pretest and
posttest than studcnts in the lecture/discussion classroom.
Hypothesis Two: Students in the cooperative learning classroom
will have a greater retention in long term knowledge recall on thc
social work history questionnaire between posttest and follow-up
than students in the lecture/discussion classroom.
Hypothesis Thrcc: Students in the cooperative learning classroom
will have a significantly greater improvement in knowledge recall on
thc five exam items from the chapter in the text covering the social
work environment than students in the lecture/discussion classroom.
Bruce Daltori arid Aiwfiii Cliiick Kuliri I 71
LITERATURE REVIEW
Cooperative learning is not a new pedagogy to the United States. Coop-
erative learning methods brought from England were being utilized in the
early 1800s. Ishler (1992) considers the American one room, multi-level
school house as a coopcrative learning environment; older, morc advanced
students were often paired with younger students.
During the last three decades o f the 19th century, Colonel Francis
Parker, superintendent o f the Quincy, Massachusetts public schools, was a
strong advocate for cooperative learning. According to Campbcll (1965),
Colonel Parker was so successful that over 30,000 people came to see his
use of cooperative learning. Parker’s cooperative learning model domi-
natcd the American educational scenc early in the 20th century. I n the
1930s, however, American cducation began emphasizing competitive
forms of learning.
Interest in cooperative learning resurfaced in the 1960s. I n the 1970s,
major centers for thc study and training in cooperativc lcarning were
started at both the Johns Hopkins University’s Ccnter for Social Organiza-
tion of Schools and the Cooperative Learning Center, University of Min-
nesota. Currently cooperative learning strategies are being incorporated
into lesson plans, curricula, and teaching styles in many fields all over the
US. and all over the world (Johnson, Johnson, and Smith, 1991).
Cooperative learning injects into the learning environment the develop-
ment of skill in the social environment (Slavin, 1983). Modern society is
composed o f coopcrative groups (i.e., families, ncighborhoods, communi-
ties, political groups, etc.). While some of these groups have competition
as part of thcir structure, all of them cannot succeed unless individuals
cooperate (Ishler, 1992). Cooperative learning is a model of learning that
movcs students from passive recipicnts to active participants in their pur-
suit of knowledge. Cooperative learning is a well defined instructional
strategy that uses heterogeneous teams of students working toward a com-
mon goal. Effective cooperative learning incorporates four basic elements.
The first component, positive interdependence, rcfers to the importance
o f the students perceiving that they sink or swim together. “In a football
game, the quarterback who throws a pass and the receiver who catches it
are positively interdependent. The success of one dcpends on the success
of the other. I t takes two to complete the pass” (Johnson, Johnson, and
Smith, 1992:16). Making a part of the student’s grade dependent upon thc
joint success of their learning group is one way to operationalize the
principle of positive interdcpendence in the classroom.
The second component is face fo face iitreracfioiz among students, a
powerful influence on accomplishing the group task. Helping each other,
sharing ideas, and setting and achieving mutual goals are all enhanced by
the face to face interaction found in coopcrativc learning (Johnson et al.,
1992).
Thc third component i s individual accountability, mcaning that each
member o f the group is ultimately responsible for her or his own learning.
Thus, consistent with cooperative learning principles, the ma.jority o f thc
student’s grade is still based on individual assignments (Johnson et al.,

1992). According to Robert Slavin (1989) whcn cooperative learning
combines group goals and individual accountability thc result is a signifi-
cant improvement in achievement for all group members.
The fourth component is that students must use appropriate ifiterper-
sorzal arid small group skills. This is perhaps thc most challenging aspect
o f cooperative learning. Students must get to know one another, dcvclop
trust, mutually support one another, and develop constructivc conflict
rcsolution strategies (Johnson et al., 1992).
When studying complex and intricate materials, students should not be
pcrmitted to become passive learners. One method of involving studcnts in
their learning is to have them explain to one another what they are learning
from the lesson. I n addition, they will also view the lesson content from
the perspective of their pccrs (Johnson and Johnson, 1989).
One of the drawbacks to the use of cooperative learning is that not all
students learn best in small groups. I n addition the majority of undergradu-
ate education is taught in the lecture discussion format. As a result incom-
ing graduatc students are unfamiliar with and may be uncomfortable with
a new Icarning methodology. However, social workers provide services to
not only individuals but also families and small groups. Thus social work
graduate students may have a grcatcr need for experience working in small
groups than other disciplines.
The literature on the lecture method provides some sharp contrasts to
cooperative learning. According to O’Donnell and Dansereau (19931, the
lecture method is most oftcn uscd in the college and graduate classroom.
The technique is efficient in communicating large amounts of information
to students in short pcriods of time, and, since a majority o f professors
were taught in a lecture environment, there is familiarity with these tradi-
tional methods.
While the lecture method is the most commonly used, it has several
shortcomings. First, the student’s attention to what the lecturer is saying
decreases as lecture time increases (Johnson ct al., 1991). T h e student in the
lecture classroom is a passive learner in relation to thc information pres-
ented (Walbaum, 1989). Students with poor memory often become over-
whelmed by the continuous tlow of information. According to O’Donncll
Bruce Dulton utid Austin Chuck Kuhti 173
and Dansereau (1993), the majority of research aimed at improving stu-

dent learning during lcctures focuses on student note taking and effective
usc of those notes. Unfortunately, improving the students ability to take
notes does not move them from the passive role of recipient of information
to a more activc rolc (Kiew, 1988). The lecture method of instruction
typically promotes lower-level learning of factual information. In addition,
students tend to not like lectures (Johnson et al., 1991).
Cooperative learning has often been viewed as a teaching methodology

for young children, however, its use in secondary education and higher
education is on the risc (Ishler, 1992). There is also empirical evidence
accumulating regarding its effectiveness at all levels of education. Accord-
ing to Johnson and Johnson (1989) “Over 375 studies have been con-
ducted over the past 90 years to answer the question of how succcssful
competitive, individualistic, and cooperative efforts are in promoting pro-
ductivity and achievement” (p. 25). Using meta analysis, Johnson and
Johnson (1991) found that students in a cooperative learning environment
performed at about two-thirds of a standard deviation abovc students in a
competitive or individualistic learning situation.
Gibbs (1987) also reported similar results: when students in a coopera-
tive learning environment are compared to students in a competitive envi-
ronmcnt, the cooperative learning students score higher on tests. In another
meta analysis, Johnson and Johnson (1992) again found that cooperative
learning produced consistently better results than other forms of educa-
tion. This held not only for individual academic achievement but also for
such measures as interpersonal attraction among students and high self
esteem.
Cooperative learning has becn used for many years in professional
schools of business, education, management, and nursing. In a study of
medical technology (MT) students, McEnerney (1992) found that coop-
erative learning was an effective teaching mcthodology. In addition, coop-
erative learning was found to be a valuable tool for preparing MTs for
working in the environment of Total Quality Management, which uses
groups of employees working together to resolve common problems and
improvc quality.
Coopcr and Mueck (1990) studied over 1,000 students taught in coop-
erative learning classes in nine different disciplines. The authors rcport
that the cooperative learning environmcnt helped improve acadcmic
achievement, higher level thinking, more interest in subject matter, and
better class attendance.
I n a conclusion of what is empirically known about the effectiveness of
the cooperative learning method, Johnson and Johnson (1992) state:
Coopcrative learning can be used with some confidence at every age

level, in every subject area, with any curriculum, and with any task.
Research participants havc varied as to economic class, age, sex,
nationality, and cultural background. A widc variety of rcsearch
tasks, ways of structuring cooperation, and measures of the depen-
dent variables have been used. The research has been conducted by
many different researchers with markedly different orientations work-
ing in different settings, countrics, and decades. The research on

cooperative learning has a validity and a gencralizability rarely
found in the educational literature. (p. 8)
The literature provides clear answcrs to several questions that social

work educators might ask about using cooperative learning: What does
social work education and in particular the teaching of social work prac-
tice have in common with cooperative learning? Both cooperative learning
and social work education placc emphasis on working together for com-
mon goals. Cooperative learning’s use o f heterogeneous groups working
together for common goals mirrors many social work micro and macro
practice settings. Many social work studcnts will later work with families
or other groups, and the cooperative learning environment can provide
valuable practical training.
When should cooperative learning techniques be used in social work
education? These techniques may be appropriate for all levels of social
work education as the literature has shown their effectivcncss at cvcry
level o f education in which they havc bcen tested.
Where should cooperative learning techniques be used in the Social
Work curriculum? These techniques may be helpful across the curriculum.
In practice courscs there would be added opportunity to work on tech-
niques with peer feedback. While not all courses focus on practice skills,
cooperative learning techniques may still bc appropriate because they
have been demonstrated to bc most cffective at teaching factual material.
H o w w i l l students’ progress be measured in a cooperative learning
environment? Both cooperative learning and social work education cxpcct
individual accountability. The social work educator using cooperative
learning may call on individual students to answer questions so that each
group member must be prepared to answer for the group at any time.
Finally, both social work education and cooperative learning stress the
growth of interpersonal skills, mutual respect, acceptance o f diversity,
cooperation, and empowering o f individuals. In view of these similarities,
one would expect cooperative learning to be compatible with social work
education. To the authors’ knowlcdgc, only one social work program in
England where cooperative learning i s in use is reported in the literature.
As social work educators consider incorporating the techniques o f coop-
erative learning, eft'ectivcncss o f the teaching strategies must be measured.
The following reports the results of one such study.
METHOD
This study was conducted in a required graduate level social work

course (Foundations o f Social Work Practice) at a largc southeastern uni-
versity. The coursc sclccted is taken by all first-year social work graduate
students. This was a convenience sample of 39 students enrolled in two
sections taught by thc researchers. Incoming first-year master studcnts
arrivcd on campus prior to the second-year students and enrolled in
courses with little or no knowledge about the instructors. Also, when
students enrolled for this course they were unaware that any research was
to be conducted in any of the scctions. Thus we are assuming little or no
selection bias. Further, whcn the demographics between the two course
sections studied were compared there were no statistically significant dif-
ferences.
Operationalization of Variables
One section, which was designated the comparison group (N = 23),

covcrcd all course materials in a lecturc/discussion format. Individual
students were responsiblc for their own course assignments and examina-
tions. The instructor assigned final grades to students based on grades
received on all assignments and examinations. Thc instructor gave lectures
to the class each week based on the assigned reading material and encour-
aged questions and discussion.
The other section, which was designated the treatment group (N = 16),
covered all course materials in a cooperative learning format. During the
first class session the students were assigncd to heterogeneous groups of
four or five members in a way which maximized demographic diversity.
This was to ensure that during the year each learning group would benefit
from the perspectives of people with diverse outlooks. The readings for
each week were divided into four sections. While each student was ex-
pected to read all the assigned readings, they wcre also expected to be-
come expert in one of the four subsections. A t the beginning of class
students would meet for 20 minutes in their 'expert' groups, which were
comprised o f the other students in the class who had also been assigned to
become expert in that section o f the readings. There the students would
I 76 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL WORK
discuss the article or chapter in depth to increase their understanding and

to agree upon what they thought were the key concepts, principles, and
information in the reading. The students would then return to their learn-
ing groups and each student would take a turn teaching the others about
the reading thcy had bccome expert on, a process which would take be-
tween 20 and 30 minutes. The class would then regroup and the instructor
would have the class report upon thc key points from each reading, which
would thcn bc written on the board for the class to take notes from. During
this part of the process any remaining questions about the material were
addressed, often by calling on the students who had been the expert on that
article. The instructor was often merely a facilitator of discussion as the
class worked to understand the material. This does not mean that the
instructor had no input into how the class determined what in a particular
reading was relevant. While the class was meeting in their groups, and
especially in their ‘expert’ groups, the instructor would visit from one
group to the next to answer questions, and, just as importantly, to ask thc
studcnts if they had considered particular aspects of the readings.
Much of the organization was left to the students in order to further
their investment in the process. For example, students in their learning
groups decided who would be the designated expert for each section of the
readings.
Like the students in the comparison group, individuals took their own
examinations and were responsible for written assignments (individual
responsibility). However, ten pcrccnt of the student’s grade was deter-
mined by others in their learning group. This was done by each group
member being anonymously given a score between one and ten by each of
the other group members. Each member’s score was averagcd and figured
as ten percent of their course grade. This was done to hold each student
responsible for their own prcparation and small group participation.
The instructors of these sections had similar social work tcaching cxpc-
rience. Both wcrc male, white, close i n age, and were of the same approxi-
mate appearance. The comparison group (lecture/discussion) instructor
had been degreed this same year, had taught scvcn prcvious social work
courses, and had eight years of social work experience. The treatment
group (cooperative learning) instructor was a second-year PhD student,
had taught four previous social work courses, and had twenty-one years of
social work experience.
Research Design
This study utilized a pretest/posttest comparison group design (Camp-
bell and Stanley, 1963) with a two-month follow-up. The comparison
Bruce Dalroti mid Austbi Chuck Kuliti 177
group was instructed in the traditional lecture/discussion format while the

treatment group was instructed in the cooperative learning format. The
course material involved in the study came from the chapter of thc tcxt-
book which covered the history o f the social work profession in the U.S.
Thc rescarchers ensured that the material from each area to be measured
was covcrcd in both scctions. I n addition, both groups received the same
additional supplemental readings and viewed the same videos.

The researchers designed a 20-item questionnaire to measure subject
recall. These were true/false items based on material from the section of
the course covering the history of social work. This questionnaire was the
samc at pretest, posttest, and follow-up.
Prior to the pretest, the rescarchers described the research, answered
students’ questions, and obtaincd informcd consent. Students in both the
comparison and treatment groups were volunteers. They were identified
only by a control number devised at prctest by each subjcct and known
only to them, thus allowing for their complete anonymity.
The pretest occurred during the first class meeting. Following the pre-
test each section viewed a video and were given reading assignments for
the next class session. During the second class, the history of social work
was covered for the same amount of time in each section. Thc comparison
group was conducted in the traditional lecture/discussion format, while the
treatment group utilized the principles of cooperative learning.
The posttest was administered at the beginning o f the third class meet-
ing. Following complction of the questionnaire, the students were in-
formed that material dealing with the history of social work would not be
covered on any future examination. This was to reduce or eliminate the
students continuing to study this material, a possible confounding factor.
As a follow-up measure, the questionnaire was again administered on
the next to last class meeting. This was approximately 90 days after the
material on the history of social work was covered in class.
There was also incorporated in this study a second methodology, a
static comparison group design (Campbell and Stanley, 1963). A second
measure was also used to test the relative effcctivcncss o f the two teaching
methodologies. Five questions covering information about the social work
environment were included on the end term exam. Again, the comparison
group covered this material in a lecture/discussion format while the treat-
ment group used a cooperative learning model. The end term exam was
completed four weeks after the material was covered in class. In this case,
thcre was the potential of a differential effect of studying between the two
sections.
RESULTS
There werc no statistically significant differences between the two

groups on the demographic variables of age, undergraduate GPA, number
of previous social work courses, ycar of undergraduate degree, and years
of prcvious social work experience as listed in Table 1.
The two classes’ scores on the social work history questionnaire are
depicted in Figure 1. Thc t-tcst was used to compare the mean scores
betwccn thc two groups on the social work history questionnaire. As
shown in Table 2, the mean scores for the 20-item questionnaire did not
differ significantly between the two groups at either prc- or posttest (p =
,079 for the pretest, p = ,279 for the posttest, both one tailed). The treat-
ment group did have a significantly better score at 90-day follow-up (p =
,002, one tailed). The effect size statistic was .94, which is interpretable as
TABLE 1. Between Group T-Tests for Demographic Variables

N Mean T-val Sig (two-tailed)
Age
Comparison Group 23 30
.20 .98
Treatment Group 16 29.9
Comparison Group 23 3.45

1.16 .25
Previous Social Work Courses
- .46 .64
Year of Underaraduate Deoree
- .36 .71
Years of Social Work Exoerience
- .88 37
Bruce Doltoil and Austiii Chuck K~rhn 179
FIGURE 1
GROUP SCORES (PERCENT CORRECT)
I
t ,
.,
A
,
85 ,
,'
------
ao - /
"
,
A
'
I ,
' I
/ r
, I
75
' ,'
d' ,,'
70 ,'-
x'
65 i
~ _ _ _ _
Legend
+-COMPARISON GROU
- f - TREATMENT GROUP
meaning that the mean follow-up score for the treatment group was better
than the follow-up scores attained by 82.6% of the comparison group.'
To test the first hypothesis, that students in the cooperative learning
classroom will have a significantly greater improvement in short term
knowledge recall on the social work history questionnaire between pretest
and posttcst than studcnts in the lecture/discussion classroom, the t-test
was used to compare the amount o f changc betwecn the two groups from
pretest to posttest (see Table 2). As shown in Figure 1, the comparison
group's score improved 9% (from 72 to 81% correct) while the treatment
group's score improved 12% (from 67 to 79% correct). As shown in Table
3, this was not a significantly different rate of improvcment bctwccn thc
two groups (p = .26, one tailed).
To test the second hypothesis, that students in the cooperative learning
classroom will have a greater retention in long term knowledge recall on
thc social work history qucstionnairc bctwccn posttcst and follow-up than
students in the lecture/discussion classroom, the t-test was again used to
1.Effect size = Treatment group mean nzb~nsComparison group mean divided

by Comparison group standard deviation. The percentage interpretation is then
calculated using a z-table.
TABLE 2. Between Group T-Tests and Effect Size for Social History Ques-
tionnaire Scores
N Mean(%) T-val Sig (one-tailed) EffectSize

PretestScores
1.44 ,079 ..
Treatment Group ' 16 66

Posttest Scores
,59 ,279
Treatment Group 12 79
Follow-up Scores
-2.89 ,002 .94
TABLE 3. Between Group T-Tests and Effect Size for Amount of Change
Between Test Administrations o n Social Work Questionnaire Scores
N Mean (%) T-val Sig (one-tailed) Effect Size

Chanoe Pre to Post
.66 .26 ._
Chanoe Post to
E&&!@
2.25 ,016 ,796
compare the amount of change between the two groups from posttest t o
follow-up on the qucstionnaire. This was a measure of the cooperative
learning group to bcttcr retain material over a 90-day period. As shown i n
Figurc 1the comparison group's score remained unchanged at 81% while
the treatment group improved a further 10% (from 79 t o 89% correct). As
shown in Table 3 the amount of change between the t w o groups was
statistically significant (p = ,016, one tailed) and supports hypothesis t w o
that material learned via the cooperative learning model would bc better
retained over time. The effect size statistic was ,796, which means that the
mean improvement for the trcatrnent group was better than that attaincd by
78% of the comparison group. I t was not hypothesized that the trealmcnt
Bruce Dulturi arid A i d r i Chuck Kuliri 181
group would continue to improve between posttest and follow-up; rather,

it was expected that cooperative learning students would havc less dc-
crease in retcntion scores than the lecture/discussion students. Explana-
tions for this continued improvement include a possible interaction be-
tween the test and the cooperative learning methodology. I t was intended
that thc coopcrative learning methodology encourage more social interac-
tion between students. I t was learned that the cooperativc lcarning section
formed an informal social support group which met weekly after class,
attended by approximately one half o f the students. Students have reported
to the cooperative learning instructor that course content would be an
occasional topic. Thus the students in thc cooperative learning classroom
may have been gctting extra reinforcement of material in a way which is
congruous with the cooperative learning model.
The testing of the third hypothesis, that studcnts in the cooperative
learning classroom will have a significantly greater improvement in
knowledge recall on the five exam items from the chapter from the text
covering the social work environment than students in the lecture/discus-
sion classroom, also rclied on the t-test. This utilized a second measurc
(five itcms included on the end term exam dealing with the social work
environment) to test the relative effectiveness of the two teaching method-
ologics. As shown in Table 4, the comparison group scored 89% on these
items while the treatment group scored 96%, a significant difference (p =
.014, onc tailed). The effect size statistic was .735, which means that the
mean improvement for the treatment group was better than that attained by
76% o f the comparison group.
At posttest, an item was added to the questionnaire asking students how
many of the 23 pages of assigned reading on the topic of social work
history thcy had read. Students in the lecture/discussion classroom read a
mcan o f 18.9 pages while students in the cooperative learning classroom
read a mean of 25.4 pages. Some of the treatment group apparently read
and reread the material (four students reported more than 23 pages), pre-
sumably those who wcrc assigned to lead the small group discussion on that
TABLE 4. Between Group T-Test and Effect Size for Five Items on End Term
Exam
N Mean (“A) T-Val Sig (one-tailed) Effect Size

2.30 ,014 ,735
I82 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL W O K
material. As shown in Tablc 5, this was a statistically significant difference

between the two groups (p = ,037, one tailed). The effect size was .95,
which means that the mean number o f pages read in the treatment group
was higher than the number of pages read by 82.9% of the comparison
group.
DISCUSSION
Overall, the results o f this study demonstrate the efficacy of the coop-
erative learning model. The class section which utilized the cooperative
lcarning modcl scorcd significantly bcttcr on thc fivc itcms in thc cnd tcrm
exam dealing with the social work environment when compared to the
lectureidiscussion class section, thus supporting hypothesis three. That no
such results were found between pretest and posttest on the 20-item ques-
tionnaire may be attributable to Type Two error. This means that while
there was an observed differential in the rate of improvement between the
two groups (see Figure I), it i s a characteristic of the t-test statistic that
with groups as small as this the effect must be quite large to also be
statistically significant. Thus a real effect may have been missed by this
study bccausc o f thc relativcly small sample. Also of interest is the length
o f time between these measures. Hypothesis one tested knowledge recall
one week after presentation of material, and found no statistically signifi-
cant difference. Hypothesis three tested knowledge recall four weeks after
presentation of material and did find statistically significant results. Hy-
pothesis two, testing long term knowledge recall 90 days after presenta-
tion, was also supported. Long term retention may be a particular strength
of thc coopcrativc learning modcl. I t is indccd our intcnt in social work
education that knowledge be retained long enough for the student to use it
after graduation.
The cooperative learning class section also read significantly more
pages o f the assigned readings than the lectureidiscussion class section. As
most instructors know, motivating students to read assigned materials
before class is a constant challenge. Even without the better outcome
TABLE 5. Between Group T-Test and Effect Size for Number of Assigned
Pages Read
N Mean (#) T-Val Sig (one-tailed) Effect Size

1.86 ,037 ,950
Bruce Dalroii and Aitstiii Chuck Kithii 183
scores mentioned above this may by itself be a compelling reason to use a

coopcrativc lcarning model.
This study should be replicated in additional courses to test the efficacy
of the cooperative learning model in other social work content areas. I t
would also be helpful to replicate the study with a larger sample. Also the
Iccture/discussion section was larger than the cooperative learning section
in this study, which may have affected the class dynamics (McKeachie,
1994). One way to further remove this and other possiblc confounders
would bc to havc one instructor teach part of their course in the coopera-
tivc mcthod and another part in the lecture/discussion method, while
another instructor USCS thc opposite method at each time. This would
remove much of the effect of the instructors, students, and even the class-
room.
Social work educators should consider cooperative learning as an addi-
tional tool in their teaching repertoire. Onc ot the most difficult tasks for
the instructor using cooperative learning is the sharing o f authority and
responsibility for learning with the students, even though two o f the major
tenets of social work practicc arc cmpowerrnent and self determination.
The studcnts in the treatment group in this study were eager to accept thc
rcsponsibility and clearly benefited from their cooperative learning cxperi-
ence. This study clearly showed the need for thc profession o f social work
to reconsider its often traditional mcthods of teaching. Of course some
social work educators oftcn use group projects and assignments in their
classes. Perhaps they are unknowingly using some cooperative learning
methods. A more systematic and knowlcdgeable application of the model
could only improve these current efforts.
REFERENCES
Campbell, J. (1965). The children S crusader: Colonel Froncis W Parker. Ph.D.
dissertation, Columbia University, Teachers College. New York: Teachers Col-
lege Press.
Campbell, D.T., and Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimeiifal arid quasi-~perimeiifa1
designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Cooper, J. and Mueck, J. (1990). Student involvement in learning: Cooperative
learning and college instruction. Jourmloii Excelleiice iii College Teachiiig 1,
65-76.
Gibbs, J. (1987). Tribes: A process for social developiiierit aiid cooperafive learii-
itig. Santa Rosa, CA: Center Source Publications.
Isler, A.L., (1992). CooperariveLearitiiig. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Depart-
ment of Education.
Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R.T. (1989). Leadirig flie cooperafive scliool. Edina,
MI: Interaction Book Company.
I84 JOURNAL OF TEACHING IN SOCIAL WORK
Johnson, D.W., and Johnson, R.T. (1992). Cooperativc learning: Where we have
been, where we are going. Cooperative Learning and College Teaching, 3(2),
6-9.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., Smith, K.A. (1992). Cooperative learning: In-
creasing college faculty instructional productivity. Washington, DC: The
George Washington University.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., and Smith, K.A. (1991). Active learning: coopera-
tion in the college classroom. In Cooperative learning for secondary educa-

tion. Columbia, SC: South Carolina Department of Education.
Kiew, K.A. (1988). Cognitive aspects of autonomous note-taking: Control pro-
cesses, learning strategies, and prior knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 23,
39-56.
McEnerney, K. (1992). Cooperative learning: Experience in a professional curric-
ulum. Cooperative Learning arid College Teaching, 2 , 3 : 2-6.
McKeachie, W.J. (1986). Teaching tips: strategies, research, and theory for college
anduniversity teachers. 9th ed. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company.
O’Donnell, A. and Dansereau, D.F. (1993). Learning from lectures: Effects of
cooperative review. Journal of Experimental Edrrcatioii, 61,2: 116-25.
Slavin, R.E. (1989). Cooperative learning tlieory: Research and practice. Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Slavin, R.E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Johns Hopkins Press.
Walbaum. S. (1989). Note-taking, verbal aptitude, and listening span: Factors
involved i n learning from lectures. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Researching Teaching Methodologies in The Classroom

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Researching Teaching Methodologies in The Classroom

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Karolinska Institutet, University Library]

On: 10 October 2014, At: 02:53

Journal of Teaching in Social

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J067v17n01_12

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Austin Chuck Kuhn

ABSTRACT. This paper presents the findings of a research project

Cooperative learning is a teaching methodology which uses structurcd

thc cooperative learning approach has been effectively used in schools of

student’s grade is still based on individual assignments (Johnson et al.,

and Dansereau (1993), the majority of research aimed at improving stu-

Cooperative learning has often been viewed as a teaching methodology

Coopcrative learning can be used with some confidence at every age

ing in different settings, countrics, and decades. The research on

The literature provides clear answcrs to several questions that social

This study was conducted in a required graduate level social work

One section, which was designated the comparison group (N = 23),

discuss the article or chapter in depth to increase their understanding and

group was instructed in the traditional lecture/discussion format while the

additional supplemental readings and viewed the same videos.

There werc no statistically significant differences between the two

TABLE 1. Between Group T-Tests for Demographic Variables

Comparison Group 23 3.45

GROUP SCORES (PERCENT CORRECT)

1.Effect size = Treatment group mean nzb~nsComparison group mean divided

N Mean(%) T-val Sig (one-tailed) EffectSize

Treatment Group ' 16 66

N Mean (%) T-val Sig (one-tailed) Effect Size

group would continue to improve between posttest and follow-up; rather,

N Mean (“A) T-Val Sig (one-tailed) Effect Size

material. As shown in Tablc 5, this was a statistically significant difference

N Mean (#) T-Val Sig (one-tailed) Effect Size

scores mentioned above this may by itself be a compelling reason to use a

tion in the college classroom. In Cooperative learning for secondary educa-

You might also like