EFFECT OF CO-OPERATIVE LEARNING ON THE EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENTS OF STUDENTS AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LEVEL

Malik Amer Atta1,Asif Jamil1 ,Ghulam Muhammad Kundi2 & Muhammad Siddique3 1Institute of & Research Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, Pakistan 2Department of Public Administration, Goaml University, D.I.Khan 3Department of Arabic and Islamic Studies, Gomal University, D.I.Khan

ABSTRACT The foremost purpose of this study was to probe that how cooperative learning effect educational attainment of students at elementary school level. Regarding this research sample consisted of 8th class elementary school student. These students divided into two equal groups i.e. control and experimental. Results of this research work indicated that cooperative learning affect the educational attainment of students at elementary school level. Key Words: Cooperative learning, Educational attainment, Elementary schools.

INTRODUCTION level in Pakistan teaching learning process Cooperative Learning means structuring is totally based on rote memorization and classes about small groups. These groups students are given very less time for active work together for the achievement of participation and interaction. success, in such a way that each group member depends on the group. In Johnson & Johnson (1999) so many cooperative learning different groups work studies have been undertaken to measure in different situations, these groups work the success of cooperative learning as an differently but one thing is common in instructional method/technique regarding between the group i.e. attainments of goal. social skills, student learning, knowledge Cooperative learning groups balance some and various achievements across all levels main elements i.e. students sit side-by-side so in this perspective the general at the same time and same table to talk consensus is that cooperative learning play with each other. In cooperative learning a very crucial role in positive student there is too much involvement of each and outcomes in all domains. every student like discussing materials, helping, or sharing material with other STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM students. In cooperative learning, group of In teaching learning process at elementary students are structuring in such a way that school level this research was designed to there is interdependence among students. probe the effect of co-operative learning on the educational attainments of students. Co-operative learning plays a very imperative role in the educational triumph OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY of students in teaching learning process, so The core objective of research was to find the role of a teacher should be co- the attainment of the students regarding operative. Effective teaching learning co-operative learning. process requires the conscious, effective, cooperative and active efforts of the HYPOTHESIS teacher and the student. At elementary 88 Atta et.al., Effect of Co-Operative

Following null hypothesis was formulated an increase in a variety of thinking and tested through the process of research. strategies among individuals in the group. H0: There is no significant effect of the co-operative learning on educational Johnson and Johnson (1989) introduce five attainments of students at elementary elements (face-to-face interaction, positive school level. interdependence, individual accountability, processing, and social LITERATURE REVIEW skills) indispensable for effective group Cooperative Learning learning, achievement, and higher-order Slavin (1990) Cooperative learning is an skills (e.g., problem solving, organizing, approach to organize, arrange, reasoning, planning, reflecting and systematize, assemble and classify decision-making). classroom activities into academic learning experiences to get maximum Cooperative learning Techniques learning outcomes. So the main focus of Schul (2011) discusses that there are the cooperative learning is “structuring number of cooperative learning techniques positive interdependence” in teaching available i.e. think Pair Share, Jigsaw, learning process. Reciprocal teaching, student-teams- achievement divisions, three-step Kagan (1990) regarding academic interview, roundtable, numbered heads gathering students must work in groups to together, pairs check etc all these complete academic tasks collectively. techniques improve skills, education, Cooperatively students learning capitalize knowledge, thinking, attitude, aptitude, on one another’s resources and skills. In interdependence and social values of the the process of cooperative learning the students. role of teachers has been changed, the teacher should facilitate students’ learning. Research supporting cooperative It has been discussed that in cooperative learning learning students work in a group so Brown & Ciuffetelli (2009) different everyone succeeds when the group researches in the perspective of succeeds. cooperative learning demonstrated extremely positive results. In school Ross and Smyth (1995) depict cooperative situation cooperative learning engage learning as creative, intellectually students in group and increase learning, demanding, open-ended, and involve education, knowledge, skills. On the higher order thinking tasks. In cooperative subject of cooperative learning the positive learning group work is more effective and outcomes include: academic attainments, efficient in quality and quantity when improved relations and increased personal, compared to working alone in teaching social and intellectual development. learning process. Sapon-Shevin (1994) from pre-school to Johnson (1994) elaborate cooperative post cooperative learning in such a way that promote better learning has been found to be a successful communication, mutual liking, high teaching strategy. At elementary level acceptance and support, as well as exhibit cooperative learning is a fine teaching strategy in order to fulfill the needs of

Gomal University Journal of Research, 29(2) Dec 2013 89 Atta et.al., Effect of Co-Operative

students. Basic educational needs of teenagers can be completed easily with the Sample of the Study help of cooperative learning. Following sample was selected by simple random sampling technique. Ke and Grabowski (2007) indicated that 1. Government Higher Secondary cooperative learning is a doing well School # 1D.I.Khan. teaching strategy because small teams are 2. 60 Students of 8th class were prepared to interact with each other so in selected for this study. this way students of different levels and ability use a variety of learning activities Instruments to improve their understanding of different The following two instruments were used subjects. in this study. o Pre-Test Kamuran and Fikri (2008) engaged student Pre-test was used to know the to teach by using cooperative learning performance of experimental technique improved performances of group and control group at students. Innovative cooperative learning initially. model positively improve students’ o Post-Test attainment and learning motivation. Post-test was used to know the performance of experimental Brady & Tsay (2010) describe that group and control group at the students who fully take part in group end of experiment. activities, provide useful feedback and positive behavior which is essential for Procedure of the Study their academic carrier. Study supports the The procedure of this study was two equal perception that cooperative learning is an performance groups of students were active pedagogy that promotes higher selected on pre-test. One group was called educational attainment. Cooperative experimental group and the other was the learning increases enjoyment of school control group. Both groups were taught by and class regarding skill, motivation, the same type of teachers. The behaviour, attitude and interdependence. experimental group was provided cooperative learning facility while the Johnson and Johnson (1989) concluded control group was not provided such cooperative learning results in: facility. After one month teaching a post o Increased higher level way of thinking. test was given to the students. The marks o Increased generation of new ideas and of both tests were arranged and compared solution of various problems. by using t-test and coefficient of variation o Greater transfer of learning between (CV). situations. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY To determine significant effect of Population of the Study cooperative learning on the educational The Population for the study included all attainments of students, t-test and the secondary school students of District coefficient of variation (CV) was used. Dera Ismail Khan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan.

Gomal University Journal of Research, 29(2) Dec 2013 90 Atta et.al., Effect of Co-Operative

Chaudhary (1996), “To compare the

x1  x2      performance of two candidates co-efficient t    1 2 1 1 of variation was used” (p.106). S  p n n 1 2 With   n  n  2 d. f Alam (2000), “Stability or consistency in 1 2 Where the variables is used as terms opposite to  f1x1  f2 x2 X 1  X 2  variation or dispersion i.e. more stable will  f1  f2 2 2 be the data if it has less variation similarly 2 (n1 1)S1  (n2 1)S2 SP  less stable will be the data if it has more n1  n2  2

2 1 2 variation”. (p.151) Where S  (X  X 1) 1 n 1 1i 1 2 1 2 And S  (X  X 2 ) Applied test formulae are as under: 2 2i n2 1 S Co  efficient of Variation  C.V  100 X WhereS  s tan dard deviation and X  Mean

ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION OF DATA

TABLE#1: SHOWING THE PRE-TEST SCORES OF CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUP Level of t- Mea S. t- Group n C.V d.f Significance(α calculate n D tabulated ) d 1 29.2 Control 12 3.51 - 5 5 28 0.05 +2.048 0.00090 Experiment 1 13.1 29.2 3.85 4 al 5 6 6

TABLE#2: SHOWING THE POST-TEST SCORES OF CONTROL AND EXPERIMENTAL GROUPS Level of t- Mea S. C. t- Group n d.f Significance (α) calculate n D V tabulated d 1 22. Control 11.2 2.52 5 5 28 0.05 +2.048 +4.25 Experiment 1 9.8 14.5 1.43 al 5 6

Gomal University Journal of Research, 29(2) Dec 2013 91 Atta et.al., Effect of Co-Operative

RESULTS was taught by cooperative learning Table#1 indicates that the mean of control techniques performed significantly better group is 12 and mean of experimental than the control group in which group is 13.16 similarly standard deviation cooperative learning techniques were not of control group is 3.51 and mean of provided. experimental group is 3.85. The co- efficient of variation of control group is RECOMMENDATIONS 29.25 and experimental is 29.26. The t- In perspectives of the findings and the calculated value -0.000904 is less than the drawn conclusion it is recommended that:- t- tabulated +2.048, so we accept H0 and conclude that there is no significant 1. Cooperative learning techniques difference between the performance of may be used in the classroom at control and experimental group. elementary level to include students in teaching learning Table#2 indicates that the mean of control process. group is 11.2 and mean of experimental 2. Teachers may be established high group is 14.5 similarly standard deviation level of interaction through of control group is 2.52 and mean of questioning as it promotes experimental group is 1.43. The t- involvement enhances learning and calculated value +4.25 is greater than the motivates students. t- tabulated +2.048, so we accept H1 and 3. Teachers may be given attention to conclude that there is significant all the students in the class difference between the performance of including back benchers to increase control and experimental group. Regarding achievement of students. results difference was in the favor of 4. Teachers may be provided chances experimental group. The co-efficient of to the students to participate in the variation (C.V) of controlled and teaching learning process. experimental group is 22.5 and 9.86 respectively. Since C.V of experimental REFERENCES group is less than the controlled group so Alam S K (2000). Statistics Concepts and there is consistency in the performance of Methods, Karachi: Urdu Bazar, Rehman experimental group. Publishers.

CONCLUSION OF THE STUDY Brady M & Tsay M (2010). A case study Regarding findings it is concluded that of cooperative learning and there is a difference between the communication pedagogy; Does working achievement of control and experimental in teams make a difference? Journal of the group’s students. The experimental group

Gomal University Journal of Research, 29(2) Dec 2013 92 Atta et.al., Effect of Co-Operative

Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, mathematics using TAI and STAD 10(2), 78-89. methods, Educ Stud Math 67, 77-91. Brown H & Ciuffetelli D C (2009). Ke F & Grabowski B (2007). Foundational methods: Understanding Gameplaying for math learning: co- teaching and learning. Toronto: Pearson operative or not? British Journal of Education. , 38(2), 249-259. Chaudhry S M & Kamal S (1996). Lyman F T (1981). The responsive Introduction to Statistical Theory Part1& classroom discussion: The inclusion of all Part 2, Lahore: Al-Hajaz Printing press. students. In Mainstreaming Digest, ed. A. Heeden T (2003). The reverse jigsaw: A Anderson, 109-113. College Park: process of cooperative learning and University of Maryland Press. discussion. Teaching Sociology 31 (3): Palinscar A S & Brown A L (1984). 325-332. Reciprocal teaching of comprehension- Johnson D W & Johnson R T (1989). fostering and comprehension-monitoring Cooperation and competition: Theory and activities. Cognition and Instruction, I (2), research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book 117-175. Company. Ross J & Smythe E (1995). Differentiating Johnson D W & Johnson R T (1999). cooperative learning to meet the needs of Learning Together and Alone: gifted learners: A case for transformational Cooperative, Competitive, and leadership. Journal for the Education of Individualistic Learning (5th ed.). Boston: the Gifted, 19, 63-82. Allyn and Bacon. Sapon-Shevin M (1994). Cooperative Johnson R David Johnson (1994). learning and middle schools: What would it take to really do it right? Theory into Learning together and alone, cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning. Practice, 33, 183-190. Needham Heights, MA: Prentice-Hall. Schul J E (2011). Revisiting and old Kagan S (1990). The structural approach friend: The practice and promise of to cooperative learning. Educational cooperative learning for the twenty-first Leadership, 47(4), 12-15. century. The Social Studies, 102, 88-93. Kamuran T & Fikri A (2008) The effects Slavin R E (1990). Cooperative learning. of cooperative learning on Turkish New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. elementary students’mathematics Slavin R E (1991). Synthesis of research achievement and attitude towards on cooperative learning. , 48, 71-82.

Gomal University Journal of Research, 29(2) Dec 2013