The effect of cooperative learning strategies towards students’ mathematical achievement and attitude of Primary 5 students in water village primary schools
| See Kin Hai University | Noor Kartimala binti Haji Matassan Sekolah Rendah Mabohai |
Abstract: The study hopes to examine the effects of cooperative learning strategies on students’ mathematics achievement. The effects of attitude, gender and age factors were also examined. The study involved 109 Primary 5 students in three government primary school in water village area in
It was found that there was a significant difference in mathematics achievement scores between the experimental and the control groups before and after the intervention. Cooperative learning strategies were effective in helping students learn coordinates and graphs. Attitude towards students mathematics achievement test were found to have significant influence on the performance of Primary 5 students in coordinates and graphs. Gender was found to have a significant influence on the performance of Primary 5 students in coordinates and graphs. The age factor was found to have no significant influence on students’ mathematics achievement in coordinates and graphs. Students’ perceptions were found to have no significant influence on students’ mathematics achievement on coordinates and graphs.
Introduction
Cooperative Learning is a teaching arrangement that refers to small, heterogeneous groups of students working together to achieve a common goal (Kagan, 1994). Students work together to learn and are responsible for their teammates' learning as well as their own. The basic elements are:
1. Positive interdependence - all students work as a group from the beginning of a task towards the end of the given task to achieve the same goal and success.
2. Individual accountability - students’ own ability to complete the given assessment after sharing and discussing the ideas in a group.
3. Face-to-face interactions - all students in a group will help and support each other to achieve the main goals.
4. Social skills - all students must be prepared for leadership and decision making.
Hundreds of studies have been undertaken to measure the success of cooperative learning as an instructional method regarding social skills, student learning, and achievement across all levels from primary grades through college. The general consensus is that cooperative learning can and usually does result in positive student outcomes in all domains (Johnson & Johnson, 1990). However, very few studies have been published that specifically target the use of Spencer Kagan's Structures of Cooperative Learning (Kagan, 1994) as teaching methods to increase student achievement.
Therefore, the purpose of this study is to determine whether cooperative learning can promote active learning and enhance academic achievement among a sample of primary 5 students in water village primary school. The findings of this study may hopefully, be used to improve teaching of mathematics in Bruneian primary schools.
Literature Review
Ngo (2000) defines learning as something students do, not something that is done to students. It requires students’ direct and active involvement and participation. Cooperation is working together to accomplish shared goals, to seek outcomes beneficial to each other. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups that allows students to work together to maximize their own and each other's learning (Johnson and Johnson, 1994).
Structuring cooperative learning involves more than seating a number of students close together and telling them to help each other. Simply placing students near each other and allowing interaction to take place does not mean learning will be maximized. Cooperation often goes wrong due to the absence of certain conditions that mediate its effectiveness. These conditions are the basic elements or characteristics that make cooperative effort more productive.
There are several reviews of the relationship between cooperative learning and mathematics achievement. The reviews were conducted by Johnson and Johnson (1990), Kagan (1994), Slavin (1990a, 1990b), and others. These reviews conclude that, in general, group work has a positive effect on students’ achievement in mathematics.
According to Slavin (1990a), there are three instructional methods used in Students Team Learning: Students Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD), Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT), and Team Assisted Individualization (TAI). Students Team Learning methods are cooperative learning strategies developed and researched at
According to Slavin (1990b), the three concepts present in all the Students Team Learning methods are team rewards, individual accountability, and equal opportunities for success. If the team achieves certain criteria, it will earn team rewards. Slavin stated, “equal opportunities for success means that students contribute to their teams by improving on their own past performance”. All the team members, whether high ability, average or low ability ones, will have equal chance to do their best. He reviewed research on applications of cooperative learning methods in elementary and secondary schools. A total of sixty studies, with five studies using STAD in mathematics, were included. The overall results of these studies have shown a positive effect of cooperative learning on achievement. Moreover, the methods that used group goals and individual accountability, for example Students Team Learning STAD, TGT, TAI, and cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition, CIRC), are more effective for increasing students achievement and other forms of cooperative learning.
Johnson and Johnson (1990) cited several meta-analyses to support the positive effects of cooperative learning. Seventeen studies that compared cooperative and competitive learning showed an average effect size of 0.55 in favor of cooperative learning. Thirty one studies comparing cooperative and individualistic learning showed an average effect size of 0.68 for the cooperative groups. They concluded: “These results indicated that students at the 50th percentile in the cooperative condition would perform at the 71th percentile in the competitive condition and at the 75th percentile of the individualistic condition”. They pointed out that students in the cooperative learning group were also successful in answering mathematics problems and had better retention of mathematics facts and principles. Cooperative learning, when compared to the competitive and individualistic learning, resulted in better discovery and higher quality reasoning strategies. It also produced more new ideas and better transference of mathematics strategies from group work to the individual work.
Kagan (1994) concluded that cooperative learning promotes higher achievement than competitive and individualistic learning structures. He cited a meta-analysis of 122 achievement-related studies. Slavin (cited in Kagan, 1994) analyzed 46 controlled research studies. He found 89% of the studies covered achievement gains using group rewards for individual achievement (individual accountability). In another review, Adams, Carlson, and
Conrad (1997) conducted a study of the group project method on three college algebra classes. The control class was taught using the traditional lecture format, while the students in the other two classes were given group projects and daily quizzes to be completed in the group format. Although there were no significant differences between the pre-registration scores of the three classes, the traditional class performed significantly better on the final examination than the group format classes. Conrad suggested that the possibility for this outcome might be the class size (the traditional class had fewer students than the group format; 20 versus 30), the daily quizzes that would not have required regular review on the part of the students, and the traditional format of the final examination.
A meta-analysis review by Suri (1997) examined studies on the effects of cooperative learning in mathematics on secondary students (grade levels 7-12). The studies were conducted on normal progress students from different socio-economic backgrounds or with varying academic potential. There were twenty-nine studies selected for the analysis. A syntheses of the quantitative data converted to an effect size was used. Cooperative learning was found to promote the retention capacity of students (d = +0.50). This shows that cooperative learning has overall positive effects on achievement in secondary mathematics in these studies.
In a seminar (1997) on cooperative learning held at Regional Centre in Science and Mathematics (RECSAM)
Another study reported in the seminar was by Kurustien (1997) who studied the effects of CL and constructivist approaches on factorization of 48 grade 9 students from
Aranador (1997) conducted a study of Form 1 students in two public secondary schools in
Another study presented in the seminar was by Khairiree (1997) who examined some aspects of the implementation and effects of a model of CL on mathematics achievement of Grade 4 pupils in
Of particular interest to this project is the study of Teeravarapaug and Khairiree (1995). They conducted an experimental study on students’ mathematics achievement and attitude in mathematics in
Sherman and Thomas (1986) conducted a study of high school students who learned percentages using cooperative learning (STAD and TGT) and individualistic teaching strategy. There was no significant difference on the achievement pretest for both groups. But both groups had a significance increase on their post-test scores compared to their pretest scores. The cooperative group had significantly higher post-test scores than the individualistic group. They stressed that one factor which made the STAD/TGT model effective in improving academic achievement is inter-group competition was that students in each group could give moral support and push each other to ensure the success of their group.
Another study done by Dalilah (1999) revealed that there were no statistically significant differences in mathematics achievement scores between the experimental and the control groups both before and after the intervention. This may be due to a short experimental period for the cooperative learning to become effective. Both methods were equally effective in helping students learn Everyday Mathematics, Rate and Ratio among students in secondary level.
Dotson (2001) in her study compared the achievement scores of sixth-grade social studies students who participated in classes using Spencer Kagan's Structures of Cooperative Learning with students who did not. In her study,a heterogeneous grouping of students is essential to the use of cooperative learning structures and the groupings involved consisted of students with varying abilities, from mentally impaired to gifted. The measures were curriculum-based assessments and the mean scores of each class were compared. The results indicate that cooperative learning structures can be used successfully for students of diverse abilities. The students in the study presented a wide variety of abilities and functioning levels; including mildly mentally impaired (MMI), learning disabilities (LD), attention deficit (ADD), obsessive compulsive (OCD), English as a second language (ESL), and gifted (GT). All students with special needs in the treatment group were more successful than those in the control group.
Howard (2005), in his study determined the effect(s) of using cooperative learning strategies on Performance Assessments and Attitudes of Journalism 1 students. The sixth hour Journalism class of 16 students participated in a three-week unit on “Students’ Legal Rights and Responsibilities”. The two cooperative learning strategies used were: “Quiz-Quiz-Trade” and “Timed Pair Share”. The results of this study indicated that using these two cooperative learning strategies had a positive impact on performance assessment scores and attitudes. It showed a definite increase in improvement both on the pre-test/post-test and on the performance assessment.
Teeravarapaug and Khairiree (1995) found that students in the CL group had better attitudes towards mathematics than those in NCL group. They measured attitude in terms of enjoyment of mathematics, perceived value of learning mathematics, and social activities in learning mathematics.
Leikin and Zaslavsky (1997) examined the effects on different types of students’ interactions while learning mathematics in a particular cooperative small-group setting. To explore students’ interactions and students’ communications, they used these instruments: classroom observations, students’ written self-reports, and an attitude questionnaire. They found an increase in students’ activeness and students also had positive attitude towards the CL method, mainly in the learning activities of posing questions and providing explanation to their peers. This study was conducted on low-level Grade 9 classes.
Bassarear and Davidson (1992) listed some positive results when the students took part in small-group discussions. They wrote, “First, the students can often address other students’ questions more effectively than the teacher because they have just learned the concept and their explanations are often more understandable to each other. Second, in the effort to communicate one’s understanding of a concept, that understanding is generally strengthened. Third, the discussions can often capture various misconceptions or point to the need for connections to be made. Fourth, in walking around the room, the teacher can have more effective mathematical discussions with small groups than he or she can have with large classes”. They also concluded with a list of benefits for students when cooperative learning methods are frequently used in the class. Some of the benefits are ‘decreasing math anxiety and increasing math confidence, making friends with group members across boundaries of race, class, and gender, increased ability to cooperate with others and develop social skills, and a lively, engaging, and enjoyable mathematics class”. This may affect the attitudes of the students.
The more recent studies conducted in
A study by Meriam (1997) examined the effects of Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) on the attitude towards mathematics of Year 4 students. The study involved a quasi-experimental non-randomized pre-test-post-test design and the duration of the treatment was three and a half weeks. The results showed that the attitude of the Year 4 students using TGT method did not produce a statistically significant difference attitude of Year 4 students in the control class from another school.
Howard (2005), in his study determines the effect(s) of using cooperative learning strategies on Performance Assessments and Attitudes of Journalism 1 students. There was a difference in the attitude toward both student rights’ and responsibilities and cooperative learning in the attitudinal survey given.
Dalilah (1999) found that students’ attitude towards mathematics were not significantly different in the pre-test and post-test scores within each group, except in the Enjoyment Scale that the control group showed a statistically significant increase in the mean score. This shows that the traditional method had produced some improvement in the students’ attitudes towards enjoyment of mathematics in this case.
Methodology
Design
The study is of a pre and post quasi-experimental design with intact groups using a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection.
Participants
The subjects of the study consisted of Primary 5 students. The students were all from a Primary 5 mixed ability group of students with an average age of 10 years old. The samples of this study comprised 109 students (55 students for the control group and 54 students for the experimental group. Four mathematics teachers were involved in the study.
Instruments
The study used one achievement tests (SMAT), a questionnaire (SMAS) and students’ feedback checklist. There are 20 questions used in Student Mathematics Achievement Test (SMAT). The test consisted entirely of pencil-and-paper questions on coordinates and graphs. It was conducted based on the experience of teacher of teaching mathematics for the past eight years. The past PSR exams paper and Primary Mathematics 5B textbook for Brunei Darussalam were used to develop the test. The test items covered the topics of Primary 5 coordinates and graphs. The maximum possible score on SMAT was 50. The test items contain eight types of knowledge and skills expected of Primary 5 students with respect to coordinates and graphs which are set out in the Primary 5 mathematics syllabus.
In addition to the achievement tests which directly tested students’ skills and concepts of mathematics (coordinates and graphs), a student’s mathematics attitude scale (SMAS) was devised and used. This attitude test was adapted from Teeravarapaug and Khairiree (1995). This modified version of attitude test was chosen because the items used simple language and could be easily understood by the local students. It was also relevant to the topic of cooperative learning under study. For this study, it was decided to use a 5-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree, Agree, Not Sure, Disagree, and Strongly Disagree). Based on this score, each student is classified a high, medium or low attitude towards mathematics.
To obtain information about the students’ perceptions of each teaching method (CL and NCL), four checklists (STAD, TGT, Jigsaw II and NCL) were used, and some students were interviewed. This checklist consists of ten 5-point Likert items. There are 10 items use in the checklist. Out of the 10 items, 4 items are common and the rest are different. A set of eight items was used as an interview guide for each group. Different protocols were used because one interview was administered to get the feedback about the traditional method (NCL). The interviews were used to supplement the checklist data, so that more valid results were obtained.
Procedure
The following framework explains the administration of the experiment which was extended over 6 weeks.
Prior to the treatment, the teachers involved in the experimental group were given a specific instruction on what to cover in the treatment activities. These treatment activities were prepared by the researcher and were closely followed in accordance with the expectation laid out in the
(mean score)
Fig shows a theoretical framework of this study
Primary 5 mathematics syllabus. The treatment activities for the experimental groups were conducted by their own mathematics teachers. For six weeks, at the beginning of every normal mathematics lesson, the students in the experimental group were given a lesson using a cooperative learning method in order to improve their understanding on coordinates and graphs. By having their own mathematics teachers to do the treatment, it was hoped that the students would not react differently as they do towards someone new to them (such as trainee teachers or researchers).
There are three techniques used for the study. Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) technique is used in School A, Teams-games-tournament (TGT) is used in School B and Jigsaw II is used in School C.
Before the intervention, the students in the experimental and the control groups took the mathematics achievement pretest and attitude pretest. The achievement test was administered
shortly after they completed the attitude test. The experimental class (CL) was supervised by the researcher herself but the control group (NCL) was supervised by the class teacher which was held at different times. The actual teaching began in July 2006. The duration of the teaching periods for the two groups was the same that is 6 lessons (with a total of 12 hours). Both groups studied the same mathematics topics. The student’s feedback for both groups on each method of teaching using the checklist was obtained during the last lesson (lesson 6).
At the end of the experiment, the attitude posttest and the achievement posttest were administered to both groups. During the posttest, the NCL group was supervised by the class teacher, while the CL group was supervised by the researcher at the same time but in different
rooms. The students were given 45 minutes to complete the tests. On the same day, six students (three students from each group) were interviewed immediately after completing the achievement and the attitude post-test. This student was selected based on their performance in the mid-year examination 2006. Each student was interviewed for fifteen to thirty minutes. The students were interviewed individually by the researcher in the resource room of the school. All the interviews were audio taped and transcribed.
Results
To compare the performance of the students in the mathematics achievement test between the experimental and the control groups, one-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used. It is used to compare the influences of three different types of treatment as the independent variable and the dependent variable consisted of scores on the post-test after the treatment was completed. The pre-test scores were used as the covariate as students come from different background.
There was a significant relationship between the pre-SMAT mean scores and post-SMAT mean scores of both the control and experimental groups in all the three schools as well as when combining the three schools (see Table 1 below).
Table 1
Analysis of Covariance for the Post-SMAT Scores Adjusted by Pre-SMAT Scores
| Source | df | Mean Square | F ratio | Sig. |
| Control Group | | | | |
| Pre-SMAT | 1 | 1224.106 | 20.738 | .000* |
| Control Group | 2 | 12.048 | .204 | .816* |
| | | | | |
| Experimental Group | | | | |
| Pre-SMAT | 1 | 977.990 | 9.861 | .003* |
| Experimental Group | 2 | 667.025 | 6.726 | .003* |
*p <.05
In order to find out which cooperative learning strategies is favourable, a post hoc test in Table 2 provides the results of the Scheffé test for the experimental group between the three different types of strategies and their post-SMAT scores. The results indicated that cooperative learning strategies using STAD and TGT are the most favourable in this study.
Table 2
Post Hoc tests Using Scheffé Test for Strategies and Performance for the Experimental group
| Types of Strategies | Mean Difference | Std. error | Significance | |
| EGA-STAD | EGB-TGT | 7.31 | 3.608 | .139 |
| | EGC-Jigsaw II | 17.35* | 3.424 | .000 |
| EGB-TGT | EGC-Jigsaw II | 10.04* | 3.767 | .036 |
*The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.Note:
| CGA - Control Group of School A CGB - Control Group of School B CGC -Control Group of School C | EGA (STAD) - Experimental Group of School A EGB (TGT) - Experimental Group of School B EGC (Jigsaw II) - Experimental Group of School C |
To examine the extent gender and age affect the students’ performance in mathematics test between the experimental and the control group, two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. There is a significant different existed within the post-SMAT scores among males and females towards students’ mathematics achievement test for the whole sample and the experimental group (see Table 3 and 4).
Table 3
ANOVA Results of the Main Effects for Gender for the Whole Sample
| Source | df | Mean Square | F value | Significance |
| Gender | 1 | 848.201 | 6.353 | .013* |
Table 4
ANOVA Results of the Main Effects for Gender for the Experimental Group
| Source | Df | Mean Square | F value | Significance |
| Gender | 1 | 589.713 | 3.947 | .052* |
A comparison of the mean scores for male and female revealed that there is a noticeable difference in the performance of male and female students where there were more female students in high and medium performance level for the whole sample and the experimental group. However, it was cleared that there is no significant difference between the SMAT of males and females in the control group.
However, the results reveal that students’ age is not a significant effect on students’ mathematics achievement test for the whole sample, the experimental group and the control group. There is no significant two-way interaction. Hence, although gender is significant effects, there is no interaction between gender and age level for the whole sample, the experimental group and the control group.
To find out whether the experimental group display a more positive attitude towards mathematics than students in the control group, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used. The effect of different categories of attitude (high attitude, medium attitude and low attitude) and the students’ performance was found to be significant for the whole sample and the experimental group (see Table 5 and 6).
Table 5
Analysis of Variance of Attitude towards Students’ Mathematics Achievement Tests and Performance in Post-SMAT for the Whole Sample
| Source | Sum of Squares | df | Mean square | F ratio | Significance |
| Between Groups | 1136.36 | 2 | 568.18 | 4.387 | .015* |
| Within Groups | 13727.09 | 106 | 129.50 | | |
*p <.05
Table 6
Analysis of Variance of Attitude towards Students’ Mathematics Achievement Tests and Performance in Post-SMAT for Experimental Group
| Source | Sum of Squares | Df | Mean square | F ratio | Significance |
| Between Groups | 2435.90 | 2 | 1217.95 | 9.619 | .000* |
| Within Groups | 6584.03 | 52 | 126.62 | | |
*p <.05
The Scheffé test on post-SMAT had shown that the high attitude students scored higher on performance than the medium attitude students for the whole sample. T Meanwhile, the Scheffé test on post-SMAT for the experimental group had shown that the high attitude students scored higher than the medium attitude students. However, there is no significant difference existed within the post-SMAT scores among the groups of students in control group with three categories of attitude towards students’ mathematics achievement test.
To examine the extent gender and age affect students’ attitude towards mathematics between the experimental and the control group, two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used. There is no significant different existed within the post-SMAS scores among males and females on the student’s attitude towards students’ mathematics achievement test for the whole sample, the control group and the experimental group.
It also shows that the results also revealed that students’ age is not a significant effect on the student’s attitude towards students’ mathematics achievement test for the whole sample, the control group and the experimental group. There is also no significant two-way interaction or the whole sample, the control group and the experimental group.
To find out the perceptions of the cooperative learning strategies using STAD, TGT and Jigsaw II and the traditional method, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used. There is no significant difference existing within the post-SMAT scores among the groups of students with three categories of perception towards students’ mathematics achievement tests for the control group.
It also shows that students’ perception of cooperative learning strategies did not influence the performance in post-SMAT test for the experimental group.
Discussion
Students should be exposed to cooperative learning for certain topics. Since different ideas may arise among group members, sometimes leading to arguments among the group members, the teachers should have skill in handling these problems in small group discussion. The cooperative learning students sit in a group ad they carry out activities such as reading, interpreting, calculating, or checking. The more able students can teach the slow learners. In this way, they can communicate much better among themselves. Students can get used to this cooperative learning method through proper guidance.
Cooperative learning may be considered an alternative technique to the chalk and talk method. In order to use cooperative learning effectively in schools, teachers should be exposed to this strategy. They have to be informed that cooperative learning is one strategy that can motivate students to learn mathematics and studies have shown that cooperative learning also promotes students’ achievement. In-service training courses about cooperative learning for mathematics teachers should be conducted. Those who are expert in cooperative learning techniques should demonstrate how to teach mathematics by using this strategy.
Teachers may not be like to use the cooperative learning method because of time constraints in preparing the worksheets. Other factors are the noisy environment, class control, and there was not enough time for students to finish the worksheet in class. Teachers should be aware of these problems, but as time passes, they will be able to overcome these problems.
We need to have a curriculum and textbooks that are appropriate to the cooperative learning method. The textbooks should have more activities on problem solving, so that students have more practice, since the cooperative learning strategy requires many activities to be done.
The findings from this study are tentative and suggestive. The reasons are that, the results and conclusions drawn from this study are restricted to a particular place and sample used. Other possible topics in primary 5 textbook are not explored in this study. Other variables such as mental ability, creativity and proficiency in English are not considered and therefore their influence on the performance in coordinates and graphs cannot be assessed. There are certain areas that need to be examined for further research into cooperative learning. Therefore it is necessary to take into account other topics and other variables such as mental ability, creativity and language ability among others. In order to cater for different cultural backgrounds, further research should be conducted in rural primary schools as well as other urban primary schools in other districts in Brunei Darussalam.
References
Adams, D., Carlson, H., &
Aranador, L. C. (1997). Mathematics learning outcomes from cooperative, competitive, individualistic and traditional teaching strategy. In International conference on cooperative learning and constructivism in science and mathematics education proceedings (pp. 4-1 to 4-11).
Bassarear, T., & Davidson, N. (1992). The use of small group learning situations in mathematics instruction as a tool to develop thinking. In N. Davidson, & T. Worsham (Eds.), Enhancing thinking through cooperative learning (pp.235-250).
Conrad, J. F. (1997). A classroom experiment using small-group projects. Journal of Mathematical Behaviour, 16(2), 167-174.
Dalilah bte Hj Ramlee (1999). Effects of cooperative learning on mathematics achievement and attitude among secondary school students. Unpublished M. Ed dissertation, Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
Dees, R. L. (1991). The role of cooperative learning in increasing problem-solving ability in a college remedial course. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 409-421.
Devries, D., & Edwards, K. (1974). Student teams and learning games: Their effects on classroom process. American Educational Research Journal, 10, 307 – 318.
Dotson, J. M. (2001). Cooperative Learning Structures Can Increase Student Achievement [On-line WWW]. Retrieved on May 1, May 2006. Available: http://www.cooperativelearning.com/kaganClub/FreeArticles.html
Howard, B. (2005). Cooperative Learning Structures Improve Performance and Attitudes of High School Journalism Students [On-line WWW]. Retrieved on May 1, 2006. Available: http://www.cooperativelearning.com/KaganClub/FreeArticles.html
Huber, G. L., Bogatzki, W., & Winter, M. (1982). Cooperation als zeils schulischen lehrens und lehrens
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Using cooperative learning in math. In N. Davidson (Ed.), Cooperative learning in mathematics (pp. 103-125).
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994a). Cooperative learning in the classroom.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994b). The new circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom and school.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning.
Kagan, S. & Kagan, M. (1994). The structural approach: Six keys to cooperative learning. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 115-133).
Khairiree, K. (1997). The implementation and effects of a model of cooperative learning in mathematics. In International conference on cooperative learning and construtivisim in science and mathematics education proceedings (pp. 12-1 to 12-9).
Kurustein, P. (1997). Cooperative learning and constructivist approaches in secondary mathematics. In International conference on cooperative learning and construtivisim in science and mathematics education proceedings (pp. 10-1 to 10-7).
Leikin, R., & Zaslavsky, O. (1997). Facilitating student interactions in mathematics in a cooperative learning setting. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28, 331-354.
Madden, N., & Slavin, R. (1983). Cooperative learning and social acceptance of mainstreamed academically handicapped students. The Journal of Special Education, 17, 171 – 182.
Meriam Ismail, (1997). The effect of teams-games-tournament (TGT) on the attitudes of year four students towards mathematics in SRK Sekaaan Kecil, in the district of Matu,
Ngo, L. S. (2000). The effects of cooperative learning on achievement, social skills and thoughtfulness. Unpublished M. Ed project, Universiti Brunei Darussalam.
Slavin, R. E. (1986). Using Student Team Learning.
Slavin, R. E. (1990a). Student team learning in mathematics. In N. Davidson (Ed.), Cooperative learning in mathematics: A handbook for teachers (pp. 69-102).
Slavin, R. E. (1990b). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice.
Slavin, R. E. (1994). Student teams-achievement divisions. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative learning methods (pp. 3-19).
Slavin, R. E. & Karweit, N. L. (1984). Mastery learning and student teams: A factorial experiment in urban general mathematics classes. American Educational journal, 21(4), 725 – 736.
Supunnasri, S. (1997). Cooperative learning in upper secondary mathematics. In International conference on cooperative learning and construtivisim in science and mathematics education proceedings (pp. 18-1 to 18-14).
Suri, H. (1997). Cooperative learning in secondary mathematics: A quantitative review. In F. Biddulph, & K. Carr (Eds.), Pupils in mathematics education: MERGA 20 Conference Proceedings, Vol. 2 (pp. 484-491).
Teeravarapaug, P., & Khairiree, K. (1995). Cooperative learning in mathematics.
No comments:
Post a Comment