The effects of cooperative learning on students' skills

The effects of - "MIKE" Does Cooperative Learning Enhance the Residual Effects of Student Interpersonal Relationship Skills A Case Study

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–5. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: "MIKE"... Does Cooperative Learning Enhance the Residual Effects of Student Interpersonal Relationship Skills? A Case Study at a Taiwan Technical College Kai-Wen Cheng, National Kaohsiung Hospitality College, Taiwan, R.O.C. cooperative learning, interpersonal relationships, technical college. I. INTRODUCTION Cooperative learning instruction plays an important role in contemporary teaching instruction. Many teachers and researchers have used cooperative learning to enhance learning effectiveness and interaction in the classrooms during the last few decades. Cooperative learning incorporates five basic elements: Positive interdependence, face-to-face interaction, individual and group accountability, collaborative skills, and group processing (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). Positive interdependence is structured once group members understand that they are linked together for the same goal. Face—to-face interaction means that group members need to be collaborative in fulfilling the assigned tasks. They need to encourage each others’ efforts. individual and group accountability means that the whole group must be held accountable for achieving its goal, and each group member must be held accountable for making his or her own contributions to the group and the goal. Collaborative skills mean that teachers should incorporate various social, decision making, and communication skills into their instruction. Group processing means that group members are allowed to discuss together in terms of what group decisions are helpful. As a result, if teachers adopt :- cooperative learning appropriately, their students’ collaborative skills and interpersonal relationship skills are likely to improve. ' r In the competitive arena of modern society, two‘vital attributes required by businesses in their efforts to outperform their competitors is pervasive team spirit and cohesive force, both of which require employees to have excellent interpersonal relationships skills to facilitate communication. Interpersonal relationships play such an important role, primarily because in modern society, most jobs rely on the cooperative efforts of groups; few jobs now can be accomplished by individuals alone (Olson & Zanna, 1993). However, in the context of Taiwan’s educational instructions, where traditional independent learning is the rule, it is difficult for students to cultivate the excellent interpersonal relationship skills they will need. Under thecircumstances of such an imbalance of supply and demand from Taiwan academic units and enterprises, a radical change in teaching instruction is the best way to solve the problem. Therefore, it’s worthwhile to explore the relative efiiciency of cooperative learning and traditional teaching instruction in terms of their effects on the residual effects of smderWnal relationships in typical classroom settings .gThe purpose of this study was to document and investigate such a comparison. . II. LITERATURE REVIEW i. Cooperative Learning Cooperative learning means making students learn by way of cooperating with a small group; collaborative W- The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 10 * Num. 1 * September 2006 312 skills and social skills are listed as one of the learning targets; evaluations are made based on the performance of the group. Hence, in cooperative learning with a small group, students acquire collaborative skills and develop the notion of cooperative learning (Vaughan, 2002). The study of cooperative learning has flourished since the 19705, and based on the theory of cooperative learning, different scholars have created different teaching methods. Among - them, the most often adopted method is the Student Team Achievement Division (STAD). STAD was developed by Slavin in 1978. The content, standard, and method of evaluations it employed are similar to those in traditional teaching, so STAD is the easiest change to implement. In addition, its range of application is the broadest and its effect is outstanding. Consequently, this research adopted the teaching method of cooperative learning (STAD) in the experimental design. Despite constant support for implementing cooperative learning in schools, provoking research results on the comparative eficacy of cooperative learning versus traditional instruction are present in the relevant literature. Most research shows that students’ learning effectiveness and interaction favor cooperative learning over instructions reflected in lecture-discussion classrooms (Lazarowita, Baird, & Bowlden, 1996; McManus & Gettinger, 1996; Ciccotello, D’Amico & Grant, 1997; Gillies & Ashman, 1998; Gillies, 1999; Mueller & Fleming, 2001; Gillies, 2002', Vaughan, 2002). However, there is very little research available on the long effect of cooperative learning (Gillies, 1999; Gillies, 2002). In particular, only one research reported on the residual effects of cooperative learning, and that research was in Australia (Gillies, 2002). So the purpose of this study was not only to investigate the comparison between cooperative learning and traditional teaching instruction, but also to investigate their effects on student interpersonal relationship skills at the end of the next semester following the initial experimental semester. ii. Interpersonal Relationships Interpersonal relationships refer to relations between people. According to the periods of human growth, interpersonal relationships can be discussed separately in terms of childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and old age. Because at different stages of life, one may be in different surroundings and in contact with different people, the essence of interpersonal relatiOnships could differ (Wu, 1998). This research aims to explore whether cooperative learning enhances the residual effects of student interpersonal relationship skills, and consequently, the focus of this exploration falls on interpersonal relationships in “adolescence.” Generally, interpersonal relationships during this period involve vertical relationships and horizontal relationships. The former refers to relationships of individuals with their parents, children, teachers, students, bosses, and employees, while the latter type refers to relationships with peers. Bukowski & Hoza (1989) define peer relationships in two respects: The first is popularity, and the second is friendship, both of which can complement each other. The more popular a person is in a group, the easier it will be for him/her to gain new friends (Bukowski, 2001). Conversely, the more friends a person gains, the more popular he/she will naturally become. The interpersonal relationships this research intends to explore include the fore-mentioned vertical relationships (relationships with executives and teachers) and horizontal relationships (relationships with colleagues and classmates). III. METHODOLOGY i. Participants The participants in this research included 98- Year 2 technical college students who attended two accounting classes _These students were typical of second-year students, with a mean age of 19 years: The same aélfim‘t’rng‘rw' teacher (the concurrent researcher! I) taught the two classes at this technical college. ii. Instructional Methods The cooperative-learning based was instruction developed and used in this research according to the following five- stage methodology proposed by Slavin (1995), a method that included the following characteristics: .F ‘ 1; Class presentation: . \ According to the course’s learning objectives, 1 lectured to the whole class or led them into discussion to let all the students grasp the. . r _-- r inportantrcontent and concepts of the course. - 2:-Gr'oup'{ _ 1 divided the students into difi'erent teams, based on their distinct qualities. The terms “distinct qualities” means that the students were divided according to their race, sex, learning achievements, etc (Slavin, 1995). In this experiment, 1 divided the students into different teams according to their last academic year’s grades in a management course. After I lectured to the whole class and presented the teaching material, all the team members discussed, compared, and corrected the answers to the assignment (a cooperative learning sheet was used), so they all could master the content of the unit. During the procoss of team learning, all . The Journal of American Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 10 * Num. 1 * September 2006 313 r team members should endeavor to help all other members and spare no efforts, so the whole team can be successful. ,.- I 3. Quizzes: , If "After team learning, all the students were asked to take a quiz. The quiz was done individually, and help from team members was . :1 not allowed. Each student was responsible for his or her own learning. 1 I} 4. Individual improvemt: ' Each-student’s average score for previous quizzesserved the 7,basic_score.., The score of the current quiz, deducted horn the i basic score, turned out to be the index of the learnmgirrogress. All team members were to study hard to get a better accumulated it score, which functioned as their greatest contribution to the whole team; that accumulated score of the team was calculated by calculating the average of the total “accumulated scores” of all the team members. 5. Team recognitioh: ' When the team’s score exceeded the agreed standard, members got rewards and public praise. In addition to the public praise for the group, those who had made great progress were also rewarded and praised individually. The traditional lecture-discussion instruction for this research emphasized lectures given by me, use of textbooks and other \ materials, and clear explanations of important content and concepts to students. In addition, class discussions between students ‘3 and me and among students alter the course unit were incorporated into the teaching format. The key feature of this instruction was to provide students with clear instruction and explanations. iii. Instrument I assessed student interpersonal relationship skills using the self~edited “Interpersonal Relationship Skills Test (IRST)”, a 12-item, Liked-type, 5-point agree-disagree test. A panel of specialists that included three scholars and two technical college teachers in the related field in Taiwan established the content validity of the IRST. The IRST contains four subscales that includes “Do you like your peers?”, “Do your peers like you?”, “Do you have excellent social skills?”, and “Are you happy being part of a team?“. A reliability coefficient of 0.73-0.87 using the Cronbach’s c: was reported. iv. Research Design and Procedure .. A pretest—posttest, control—group experimental design was conducted in the two classrooms. The __ participants in both the experimental (cooperative learning instruction) and the comparison (lecture-discussion instruction) groups were pre—tested immediately before the 8-week (half a semester) treatment. During the experimental period, each group received an equivalent amount of instructional time and was provided with the same textbook and similar materials. Moreover, I also attempted to have relevant teaching resources introduced in both groups. Because the purpose of this study was to investigate whether cooperative learning did or did not enhance the “residual efl‘ects” of student interpersonal relationship skills. The participants in both the experimental and comparison groups were post~tested at the end of the next semester following the initial experimental semester (the experiment was held about 6-months before the post-test). The research design is shown as Fig l: Experimental group Q1 X Y Q2 Q1. Q3 ‘._(pre-test) C Q2. Q4 : (post-test) 0mm group Q3 Y Q4 thhe experiment treatment ( lasted for 8-weeks) thhe residual period (lasted for 6—rnonths) Fig l: The Research Design v. Data Analysis A number of variables, such as the students and an equivalent instructional contentand time, were held constant. The independent variable was the different instruction; the dependent variable was the residual effects of student interpersonal relationship skills. A multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used on the dependent variable, with pretest measures as the covariates, to determine any significant differences between the experimental group and the control groap. Wilks’ it was used to test the difference between the two groups on the set of interpersonal relationships skills posttest means. A level of confidence was set at .05. To understand further how the two groups would be different, this research also used the univariate analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on posttest measures with the pretest as the covariate on the subscale-interpersonal relationship skills items to determine significance between the groups. The basic assumptions of normality, homogeneity of variance, and parallelism of the regression planes were all first checked to make sure of the confonnation to the test. Statistical package sofiware from SPSS 10.0 edition was used to analyze all the statistical data. IV. RESULTS A t-test of students’ pretest scores on the IRST is summarized in Table 1. As shown in Table i, the students in the control group scored significantly higher than did the students in the-experimental group in the subscale -Do W The Journal ofAmerican Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 10 * Num. 1 * September 2006 314 you like your peers?. However, the students in the experimental group scored significantly higher than did students in the control group in the subscale-Are you happy being part of a team? As for the other subscales and the overall interpersonal relationship skills, there was not a significant difference between the two groups of students. ___unde W W Do you like your peers? Experimental group 53 3.42 .75 1'81 $7,, . Control group 45 3.69 .70 ' Do your peers like you? Experimental group 53 3.84 .50 _ 94 35 Control u ' 45 3.74 65 ' ' Do you have excellent social skills? Experimental group _ 53 3.49 _ .53 _1 13 26 Control group 45 3.35 .71 ' ' Are you happy being part of a team? Experimental group 53 ' 3.47 .53 _2_44 ‘02,“ Overall interpersonal relationships skills Experimental group 53 3.56 .39 3‘7] .43 Control group 45 3.50 .47 71591; “hi-Oi . ' H" J The F value for the MANCOVA, as shown in Table 2, indicates that the post-test mean scores were significantly different. That is, the cooperative learning instruction and traditional lecture—discussion groups had significantly different mean scores on the residual effects of the interpersonal relationships skills. . . . variance(pre—test) U 7 $161?"mtem‘imna““la“°"5h‘ps Main Efi‘ect (group) 11.93 l 11.93 213.50 poem ". Residual Error 5.33 95 .06 _ Total 20.7 97 **.‘*p<.01-7 " ‘lllloreover, the univariate ANCOVA performed on the IRST subscale posttest scores with the students’ pretest scores as the covariates indicated that the cooperative learning group had significantly higher scores on each subscale than the traditional lecture-disenssion group (see Table 3). Do you like your peers? Covariance (pro-test) 13.83 1 13.83 ‘_ 68.17 .000*** Main Effect (group) 17.98 I 17.98 38.60 000*“ Residual Error 19.28 95 .203 ' Total 46.26 97 Do your peers like you? Covariance (pro-test) l .82 l 1.82 12.00 .001 ‘1‘ * Main Efi'ect (group) 15.47 1 15.47 101.79 000* ** Residual Error 14.44 95 . 15 Total 32.9! 97 Do you have excellent social skills? Covariance (pre-test) 1.71 I 1 .7 E 10.05 . .002“ Main Effect (group) 10.99 1 10.99 64.61 000*” Residual Error 16.15 95 .17 Total 30.02 97 *‘p < .05; *** p < .01 The students’ learning effectiveness and interaction of cooperative learning have been substantiated by several studies in a variety of subjects (Lazarowita, Baird, & Bowlden, 1996; McManus & Gettinger, 1996; Ciccotello, D’Amico & Grant, 1997; Gillies & Ashrnan, 1998; Gillies, 1999; Mueller & Fleming, 2001; Gillies, 2002; Vaughan, 2002). However, there is only one study available about the residual effect of cooperative learning, andrth t study was in Australia (Gillies, 2002). The results of my research showthat cooperative learning instruction does enhmtfgflye residual efiects of student interpersonal relationship skills, especially in Taiwan. "" 1 V. continuous and SUGGESTIONS Today in Taiwan, technical andvocational schools spare no effort in promoting student interpersonal relationship skills so all students may enhance their competitive strengths. To a certain extent, this study provides empirical evidence to support that supposition, perhaps because the cooperative learning instruction developed and used here encourages The Journal ofAmerican Academy ofBusiness, Cambridge it Vol. 10 * Num. 1 * September 2006 315 a): students to understand the content and concept of accounting, identify the importance of cooperation, be reSponsible for the team, and progress in their interpersonal relationship skills. The results of this study also may be attributable to learning strategies proposed here, which emphasize student interaction 5nd collaboration toward mutual assignments (cooperative learning sheets), gathering and collecting information together, and sharing themselves knowledge with the others. For many students, accounting is ofien a boring course (Chang, 2005). The learning strategies proposed here may be necessary to attract students to learn accounting and improve how students to learn. Results from this study also reveal that students in the experimental group showed significantly more positive effect than did those students in the control group. The results are consistent with those of other studies (Lazarowita, Baird, & Bowlden, 1996; McManus & Gettinger, 1996; Ciccotello, D’Amico & Grant, 1997; Gillies & Ashman, 1998; Gillies, 1999; Mueller & Fleming, 2001; Gillies, 2002; Vaughan, 2002). In addition, the results suggest that the considerable research and professional practice 'about the theory of cooperation developed in the West may be useful for understanding student group dynamics in Taiwan as well (Johnson& Johnson, 1989; Johnson& Johnson, 1999; 'Ijosvold & Tjosvold, I995). The most important of all, the results of this present study support the conclusion that cooperative learning indeed has significantly more positive “residual effects". In this study, I applied the cooperative learning instruction to the accounting course and found that this instruction could enhance student interpersonal relationship skills efiectively. However, I have not applied other kinds of teaching instructions to the accounting course. I suggest that future researches adopt other kinds of teaching instruction (such as a problem-solving, creative thinking, etc.) to establish which instructions are the optimum teaching instructions for promoting student interpersonal relationship skills the mom. Suggesting that future researches adopt other kinds of teaching instructions (such as a problem-solving instruction, creative thinking instruction, etc.) to establish which are the optimum teaching instructions for promoting students’ interpersonal relationships skills. The cultivation of interpersonal relationship skills cannot be achieved on the first try; to the contrary, “that cultivation requires a longer period of time. The experiment for this research lasted half a semester ( 8 weeks); thus, time fitnctionedwaanne of the key factors for observing how the cooperative learning instruction helped improve students’ interpersonal relatiohships“skfll§The results of this study, therefore, suggest that firture researchers exercise caution when implementing experiments, so they may eifectively observe the most precise results of the experiment. Although this study concluded that cooperative learning did enhance the residual effects of student interpersonal relationship skills, owing to the limitations of time and space, I set the period of residual effects at only about 6 months. These limitations suggest that future researchers prolong the period of residual effects and re-explore the impact of “cooperative learning” on student interpersonal relationships skills. REFEREN CES Bukowsk, WM. (2001). Friendship and the Worlds of Childhood. New Directions for Child &. Adolescent Development, 9}, 93-106. Bukowsk, W.M., & HozaB. (1989). Popularity and friendship: Issues in theory, measurement, and outcome. In T. 1. chdt & G. W. Ladd (Eds), PeerRelationships in Child Development. New Yorkflohn Wiley & Sons, 15—45. - Chang, K. W. (2005). A research on the inherent limitation for enrollment in accounting education in Taiwan universities. Paper present at the 2005 economics and international business research conference, Miami, Florida. Ciccotello, C., D’Amico, R, & Grant, C. T. (1997). An empirical examination of cooperative leaming and student perfonnance in managerial accounting. Journal of Accounting Education, 2, l-9. Gillies, R. (1999). Maintenance of cooperative and helping behaviors in reconstituted groups. The Journal of Educational Research, 92, 357-363. Gillies, R. (2002). The residual effects of cooperative-learning experiences: A two-year follow-up. The Journal of Educational Research, 96:15-20. Gillies, R, & Ashman, A. (1998). Behavior and interactions of child in cooperative groups in lower and middle elementary grades. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 746-757. Johnson, D. W. 35 Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company. Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. (E999). beaming together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Lazarowitz, R., Baird, J ., & Bowlden, V. (1996). Teaching biology in a group mastery learning mode: High school students’ academic ' achievement and affective outcomes. International Journal ofSciencc Education, 18, 447-462. McManus, S., &: Gettinger, M. (1996). Teacher and student evaluations of cooperative learning and observed interactive behaviors. The Journal of Educational Research, 90, 13—22. Mueller, A, & Fleming, T. (2001). Cooperativeleaming: Listening to how children work at school. The Joumal of Educational Research, 94, 259-265. Olson, J. M., & Zarma, M. P. (1993). Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 1 17-154. Slavin, R.E. ( l 989). Research on cooperative foaming: Consensus and controversy. Educational leadership, 47, 52-55. Slavin, RE. (1995) Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice (2nd Ed.) lePrentice Hall. Tjosvold, D., & Tjosvold, M. M. (1995). Cooperation theory, constructive controversy, and effectiveness: Learning from crises. In R. A. Guzzo :55 E. Salas (Eds), Team effectiveness and decision making in organizations. San Francisco: lossey-Bass, 79-1 12. Vaughan, W. (2002). Effects of cooperative learning on achievement and attitude among students of color. The Journal of Educational Research, 95, 359-364. Wu, SC. (1998). The Efi‘ect of Cooperative Learning for Improving the Social Skills for Third Graders and Children with Poor Interpersonal Relationships. Dissertation of the National Changhua University of Education. W The Journal ofAmerican Academy of Business, Cambridge * Vol. 10 * Num. 1 * September 2006 316 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 04/08/2011 for the course MGMT 401 taught by Professor Mohamed during the Spring '11 term at Manor.

Page1 / 5

The effects of - "MIKE" Does Cooperative Learning Enhance the Residual Effects of Student Interpersonal Relationship Skills A Case Study

This preview shows document pages 1 - 5. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online