Options
Effects of cooperative learning with group investigation on secondary students' achievement, motivation and perceptions
Loading...
Type
Thesis
Abstract
An experiment conducted in Singapore secondary schools sought to evaluate the effects of the Group Investigation method of cooperative learning versus the effects of the traditional whole-class method of instruction on students' academic achievement and on their motivation to learn. The study also investigated the students' perceptions of the Group Investigation method.
Seven secondary two classes (grade 8, age 14) from two schools participated in the experiment. A total of 241 students were taught in either the Group Investigation method (n = 138) or the whole-class method (n =l 03). All the classes studied two similar curricular units in Geography and for the same number of hours per week for six weeks.
The two independent variables of the study were two methods of instruction (Group Investigation versus whole-class method of instruction) and two levels of student achievement (high-achievers versus low-achievers). Three sets of data were collected: students' academic achievement, their intrinsic motivation to learn and their written perceptions of the Group Investigation method. Students' academic achievement was measured by combining their scores from two Geography curricular unit tests given during the intervention period. The students' intrinsic motivation to learn was measured by using a twenty-five-item questionnaire about students' intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation to learn. Finally, at the end of the experiment, students who studied in the Group Investigation classrooms were asked to write about their perceptions of the Group Investigation method. The students' written statements were then coded, categorized and analysed.
Students in the Group Investigation method and whole- class instruction advanced in their achievement to the same extent over the course of the experiment. Therefore, neither method was found to be more effective than the other. The high-achieving students had significantly higher academic achievement compared with the low-achievers, as expected. The Group Investigation method did not have differential effects on the two groups of high- and low-achievers, as had been hypothesized.
Group Investigation was found to affect high-achiever's motivation to learn on the Criteria subscale only, whereas the other scales that measured motivation did not yield any significant differences compared with the scores of the students in the whole class method.
The students' written statements of their perceptions and experience of learning through the Group Investigation method provided interesting insights into their psychology of learning. A total of 955 statements were recorded by the students taught with the Group Investigation method, two-thirds (652) of which were positive statements and one-third (303) were negative statements. The high achievers wrote more statements and also provided longer and more elaborated responses than the low-achievers. Both the high-achieving and low-achieving groups made twice as many positive statements as negative ones.
Four categories of positive statements were identified: One category asserted that the Group Investigation method was interesting, fun and effective, while the other categories reflected the students' positive evaluations of their social relationships, learning skills and academic achievement in terms of deeper understanding of the topics investigated.
On the negative side, students stated that they would like the teacher to continue with their normal teaching method, that is, to present academic material to them. The students thought that the Group Investigation method was time consuming and they were concerned about their forthcoming examinations and syllabus coverage. Another cluster of statements was about their inability to learn as much from the new method of learning. Students said that they encountered some problems while working in groups, such as how to conduct their research and how to make their presentations.
One approach to the interpretation of the results obtained in this study is to take into consideration the organizational environment and norms prevailing in Singapore schools, and the limitations these impose on the implementation and practice of the Group Investigation method. It is suggested that the results that emerged here could be understood only in light of environmental constraints operating in the school and classroom that have moulded students' attitudes and orientations toward learning over their years of schooling.
Seven secondary two classes (grade 8, age 14) from two schools participated in the experiment. A total of 241 students were taught in either the Group Investigation method (n = 138) or the whole-class method (n =l 03). All the classes studied two similar curricular units in Geography and for the same number of hours per week for six weeks.
The two independent variables of the study were two methods of instruction (Group Investigation versus whole-class method of instruction) and two levels of student achievement (high-achievers versus low-achievers). Three sets of data were collected: students' academic achievement, their intrinsic motivation to learn and their written perceptions of the Group Investigation method. Students' academic achievement was measured by combining their scores from two Geography curricular unit tests given during the intervention period. The students' intrinsic motivation to learn was measured by using a twenty-five-item questionnaire about students' intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation to learn. Finally, at the end of the experiment, students who studied in the Group Investigation classrooms were asked to write about their perceptions of the Group Investigation method. The students' written statements were then coded, categorized and analysed.
Students in the Group Investigation method and whole- class instruction advanced in their achievement to the same extent over the course of the experiment. Therefore, neither method was found to be more effective than the other. The high-achieving students had significantly higher academic achievement compared with the low-achievers, as expected. The Group Investigation method did not have differential effects on the two groups of high- and low-achievers, as had been hypothesized.
Group Investigation was found to affect high-achiever's motivation to learn on the Criteria subscale only, whereas the other scales that measured motivation did not yield any significant differences compared with the scores of the students in the whole class method.
The students' written statements of their perceptions and experience of learning through the Group Investigation method provided interesting insights into their psychology of learning. A total of 955 statements were recorded by the students taught with the Group Investigation method, two-thirds (652) of which were positive statements and one-third (303) were negative statements. The high achievers wrote more statements and also provided longer and more elaborated responses than the low-achievers. Both the high-achieving and low-achieving groups made twice as many positive statements as negative ones.
Four categories of positive statements were identified: One category asserted that the Group Investigation method was interesting, fun and effective, while the other categories reflected the students' positive evaluations of their social relationships, learning skills and academic achievement in terms of deeper understanding of the topics investigated.
On the negative side, students stated that they would like the teacher to continue with their normal teaching method, that is, to present academic material to them. The students thought that the Group Investigation method was time consuming and they were concerned about their forthcoming examinations and syllabus coverage. Another cluster of statements was about their inability to learn as much from the new method of learning. Students said that they encountered some problems while working in groups, such as how to conduct their research and how to make their presentations.
One approach to the interpretation of the results obtained in this study is to take into consideration the organizational environment and norms prevailing in Singapore schools, and the limitations these impose on the implementation and practice of the Group Investigation method. It is suggested that the results that emerged here could be understood only in light of environmental constraints operating in the school and classroom that have moulded students' attitudes and orientations toward learning over their years of schooling.
Date Issued
2004
Call Number
LB1032 Tan
Date Submitted
2004