THE EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES ON ELEMENTARY STUDENTS’ SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AND SOCIAL SKILLS IN KUWAIT

ALI EBRAHIM

THE EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING STRATEGIESON ELEMENTARY STUDENTS’ SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT

AND SOCIAL SKILLS IN KUWAIT

Received: 7 April 2009; Accepted: 4 October 2010

ABSTRACT. This study compares the effects of two methods of teaching—teacher-centered and cooperative learning—on students’ science achievement and use of socialskills. The sample consists of 163 female elementary science students in 8 intact grade 5classes who were assigned to 2 instructional methods and were taught an identical scienceunit by 4 classroom teachers. The students’ science achievement was measured by aresearcher-designed achievement test given to students as a pretest and a posttest.Students’ social skills were determined by a researcher-designed survey administeredas a pretest and posttest. Analysis of the achievement test scores and the social skillssurvey responses revealed that cooperative learning strategies have significantly(p 9 0.05) more positive effects on both students’ achievement and social skills thanteacher-centered strategies. These results provide an evidential base to inform policydecisions and encourage and persuade teachers to implement cooperative learningmethods in Kuwaiti classrooms.

KEY WORDS: cooperative learning strategies, elementary science, science achievement,social skills, teacher-centered strategies

INTRODUCTION

Since the 1960s, science has become a main instructional focus inschools worldwide, but especially in the developing world in anattempt to close the scientific and technological gap that existsbetween developed and developing countries. Kuwait is among thenations that are working to match the standards of the developed worldand has placed increasing emphasis upon science in its schools.Kuwaiti educators have realized the necessity of challenging students’thinking in order for them to face and cope with the ever-changingworld of science. This will require the implementation of instructionalapproaches that enrich the ability of students to offer reasonedjudgments and creative solutions. These changes will need to take

International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education (2012) 10: 293Y314# National Science Council, Taiwan 2011

place in the unique context of a wealthy, oil-producing country havingspecific traditions, expectations, and structures.

BACKGROUND

Since 1911, the Ministry of Education in Kuwait has been highlycentralized, directly controlling the schools and educational units. Thesystem of education and teaching was designed to employ traditional(teacher-centered or individualistic) teaching approaches in which lectureis the primary means of delivering information to the students.

Many Kuwaiti educators adhere to this traditional system of teachingdue to these specific mandates and its apparent positive effects onstudents’ academic achievement. This method is considered positivebecause some educators believe that student achievement should bepredictable and manageable (Al-Kandari, 2006). These educators prefer tolet students sit alone and try to solve academic problems because theythink that individuality helps the students work independently andachieve academic success. Although Kuwaiti educators aspire to improvestudents’ scientific knowledge and for them to be current with the mostrecent scientific and technology developments, they believe that ateacher-centered, traditional lecture-and-recitation approach in scienceclassrooms has solid theoretical and empirical roots. Teacher-centeredmethodology places a strong emphasis on the maximization of time spentstudying a subject (time on task). Many teachers believe that students’achievement is more valuable than critical thinking, understanding, andscience literacy. Al-Kandari (2006) found that 93% of the scienceobjectives written in Kuwaiti teachers' lesson plans involved recall ofknowledge.

Some powerful educators in Kuwait recognize the importance of beingglobally competitive by using contemporary teaching methods. Therefore,changes are now becoming slightly more evident, with a few schoolsutilizing new methods of instruction such as cooperative learningstrategies (CLS). The need to improve instruction that promotes higherlevels of achievement and the use of social skills are primary goals ineducation today. However, it is important to evaluate these methods ofteaching and to provide teachers with an evidential base on which toselect and use effective methods.

Some research comparisons between teaching strategies have evaluatedthe effects of instructional strategies (cooperative, inquiry, competitive,individualistic, etc.) on students’ academic achievement. The current study

ALI EBRAHIM294

seeks to examine the effects of utilizing the cooperative learning method incomparison with the teacher-centered method in elementary schools.

Cooperative learning strategies are a new method of teaching inKuwait, while teacher-centered strategies fall into the traditional realm.Some educators have begun to support the use of cooperative learningbecause it fulfills two essential outcomes: the use of social skills and theimprovement of academic achievement. Other educators are eager tocontinue applying teacher-centered strategies due to their purportedpositive effects on students and their appropriateness for the educationalmandates, school environment, and classroom structures.

Cooperative Learning Strategies

Cooperative learning is a social method that is fun and engages studentsin active rather than passive learning; therefore, it is logical to expect that itwould have positive effects on social, motivational, and attitudinal outcomesas well as on achievement. Cooperative learning represents a shift ineducational approach from completive-based to collaborative-based instruc-tion in order to address diversity in the classroom (Slavin, 1990).Cooperative learning approaches create excellent opportunities for studentsto engage in problem solving with the help of other group members(Effandi & Zanaton, 2007). Reys, Suydam, Lindquist, & Smith (1998)described how cooperative learning settings promote student-centeredinstruction and advance the learning environment in the classroom.Slavin (1990) stated:

The lesson might begin with the teacher meeting with the whole class to provide anoverall perspective, present new material, pose problems or questions for investigation,and clarify directions for the group activity. The class then divides into small groups,usually with four members each. Students work together cooperatively in each group,discussing the problem or question, making and testing conjectures, verifying that eachstudent is satisfied that the group answer is reasonable. This communication of ideas withone another is especially valuable in the learning process: The students help each otherlearn science ideas. The teacher moves from group to group, providing assistance byasking thought-provoking questions as needed. Cooperative learning represents a varietyof approaches (jigsaw, student team, learning together, group investigation, etc.). (p. 10)

The majority of recent research studies encourage teachers to use CLSbecause they positively impact students’ abilities to deal with the needs,diversity, and interpersonal demands of the twenty-first century and helpthem deal with science problems successfully. Therefore, cooperativelearning approaches may have a positive influence on conceptualachievement as well as socioemotional factors.

COOPERATIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES IN KUWAIT 295

Effects on Achievement. Cooperative learning is grounded in the beliefthat learning is most effective when students are actively involved insharing ideas and working cooperatively to complete academic tasks(Effandi & Zanaton, 2007). Many research studies have indicated that theuse of cooperative learning strategies in the classroom can improvestudent performance. Slavin (1991) found over 70 high-quality studiesthat assessed CLS over a period of at least 4 weeks at elementary andsecondary school levels. All of these studies compared the effects ofcooperative learning and teacher-centered methods on student achieve-ment in various content areas. He concluded that in “67 studies of theachievement effects of cooperative learning, 41 (61%) found significantlygreater achievement in cooperative than in control classes. Twenty-five(37%) found no differences, and in only one study (4%) did the controlgroup outperform the experimental group” (p. 76).

Furthermore, Johnson & Johnson (1990) noted that more than 320studies had been conducted over the previous 90??? years comparing theeffects of cooperative, competitive, and teacher-centered situations onstudents’ achievement in different content areas. The fundamentalfindings of those studies indicated that students’ productivity incooperative learning settings is higher than in teacher-centered situations.

However, Jones (1990) explored the influence of cooperative learningversus teacher-centered learning for grades 3, 4, and 5 in two ruralelementary schools. The pretest–posttest design had students participate ina cognitive conflict activity and documented the changes in their under-standing of temperature. The results indicated that the cooperative learningapproach was no more effective than the traditional approach. Gassem(2003) investigated the effectiveness of CLS in teaching science usingpretest and posttest for achievement and scientific thinking amongintermediate school students. The 240 grade 4 students were randomly butequally assigned to the experimental and control groups. The achievementtest and scientific thinking test scores for the two groups were analyzed todetermine any differences. Statistically significant differences were foundbetween the experimental group and the control group in favor of theexperimental group for both scientific achievement and thinking.

Effects on Social Skills. There has been a growing realization that schoolsshould not just educate students to become good pupils in a given academicarea but also should socialize them to become good future citizens. Manydifferent approaches have been suggested to achieve the desired state ofcitizenship education that promotes being an educated citizen and productivemember of society. CLS are distinguished from other teaching strategies in

ALI EBRAHIM296

providing the classroom environment in which meaningful social skills arethe central focus (Slavin, 1990). Many researchers support the positiveeffects of cooperative learning on students’ friendships and interpersonalskills, such as their social interactions, engagement, self-esteem, andmotivation (Cohen, 1994; Cohen, Lotan & Catanzarite, 1990; Johnson &Johnson, 1990; Kennedy & Tipps, 1994; Lazarowitz & Karsenty, 1990,Sharan, 1996; Slavin, 1990).

In conclusion, CLS have real impacts on both students’ achievementand use of social skills. The power of these strategies comes from placingthe learners in the center of the learning process and as the essentialelement in it. Everything in the teaching process should serve students inorder to promote their learning.

Criticism of Cooperative Learning Strategies. Currently, educators andresearchers show enthusiasm regarding the application of the wide varietyof approaches under the cooperative learning umbrella in schools;however, this support does not necessarily ensure that all of thesemethods are the most effective at improving students’ cognitive abilitiesand social skills. As Sharan (1990) pointed out, “It is more than apparentto the research community that the ‘face validity’ and widespread appealthat cooperative learning holds for educators do not necessarily constituteconfirmation that this approach actually results in the effects ascribed toit, appearances notwithstanding” (p. 288).

Johnson, Johnson & Stanne (2000) argued that cooperative learningcan significantly increase student achievement (compared with teacher-centered methods) when properly implemented; however, this does notmean that all operationalizations of cooperative learning will be equallyeffective. They suggested that many of the studies conducted havemethodological shortcomings and, therefore, any differences found couldbe the result of methodological flaws rather than the instructionalapproach itself. In the future, researchers should concentrate on conduct-ing highly controlled studies that add to the confidence with which theirconclusions will be received. Furthermore, the specific classroomcontexts, procedures, and strategies involved in the cooperative approachneed to be clearly defined and illustrated.

Researchers suggest that teachers should view the cooperative learningapproach as being flexible and change teaching strategies depending onstudents’ needs and interests. Matthews (as cited in Johnson& Johnson, 1993)stated, “Not all students like working with classmates, not all students want tobe part of a learning community, and not everything that is called cooperativelearning is in fact cooperative learning” (p. 60). The cooperative learning


method can be difficult to implement effectively in the classroom. Adams &Hamm (1996) cautioned that the following elements must exist forcooperative learning methods to work effectively: positive interdependence,face-to-face interaction, individual accountability, personal responsibility forreaching group goals, frequent practice with small group interpersonal skills,and regular group processing and reflection. Another drawback is thatcooperative learning approaches generally cost more money in comparisonwith teacher-centered approaches.

Teacher-Centered Strategies

Teacher-centered strategies represent the traditional method of teachingused in most schools for many years. Traditional approaches assume thatthe main source of the information in a classroom is the teacher; therefore,students should deal mainly with the teacher to acquire knowledge.Learning involves a passive reception of information from the teacher bythe students who then organize and store these ideas without substantivemodification in long-term memory, to be retrieved when needed. Theteacher needs to partition and sequence the information so it is presentedin a logical manner in order to facilitate and reinforce the students’ rotememorization and storage of ideas.

In a traditional teacher-centered approach, the dominance of the teachertakes center stage. The students rely on their teachers to decide what,when, and how to learn. The majority of teacher learning work involveslistening to a teacher talk, using either a lecture technique or a Socraticmethod (simple question and answer) which demands basic recall ofknowledge from the learners. Lecture-based instruction dominates class-room activities, with the teacher delivering well over 80% of the talk inmost classrooms (Effandi & Zanaton, 2007).

Martin, Mullis, Gonzalez & Chrostowski (2004) found that in scienceclassrooms, 25% of the time is spent in a lecture, 19% in practice, 13% onhomework review, and 11% on students’ individual problem solving.This means that in traditional classrooms, students discuss and interactwith their teachers in a question–response–evaluation pattern to gainknowledge rather than with each other in discussions and negotiations.Sharan (1996) described such classrooms as follows:

In traditional arrangements, each student worked at his or her own pace and was expectedto be left alone by other students. It was sometimes possible for children to self-selectappropriate material and pace themselves to complete a work assignment. With thisapproach the individual took on the responsibility for completing the task, sometimesevaluating progress and the quality of the effort. (p. 11)

ALI EBRAHIM298

Traditional one-size-fits-all-students methods focus on the transfer ofknowledge between an active teacher and passive students. Students intoday’s schools have ever-increasing differences in thinking abilities,social skills, prior knowledge, and achievement; educators should beaware of this diversity. Using one strategy of teaching at all times is notsuitable for those students who do not like to work in groups or those whodo not enjoy learning individually. Therefore, teacher-directed instructionshould not be neglected completely even when it does not workappropriately in some cases. In some situations, on an as-needed basis,teachers can provide direct instruction to promote students’ achievementand use of social skills in the classroom.

Effect on Achievement. Teacher-centered learning strategies can promotestudent performance in various subjects. Michael (1997) pointed out that“Individualistic competition has been shown to strengthen performanceon high level skills” (p. 87). Sometimes, educators prefer to let a studentsit alone and struggle with solving academic problems; this solitary effortis thought to help students identify and understand the pieces of theproblem when they think deeply about the issues. Therefore, during thisprivate time, they will discover what they need in order to accuratelysolve the problem and achieve understanding.

Effect on Social Skills. Developing social skills is not a central focus ofteacher-directed instruction since most of the learning activities are basedon individual effort, which deemphasizes interpersonal efforts andcollaboration. A survey of the literature did not reveal any studies thatsupported the use of teacher-centered strategies to empower student use ofsocial skills.

Criticism of Teacher-Centered Strategies. There are criticisms oftraditional teacher-centered strategies (TCS). First, students may finddifficulty adjusting to life outside school because they may not befamiliar with socialization skills or how to work cooperatively withothers in real-life situations. Next, students subjected to TCS may notfind opportunities to freely choose the strategies they are interested into solve problems since the teacher decides the most appropriateproblem-solving strategy.

Moreover, students, especially in the primary grades, may becomebored with the one-way communication found in teacher-centeredinstruction. Early grade students who may be hyperactive should beprovided classroom environments that utilize a mixture of activities,


groupings, and settings. Furthermore, early grade students are motivatedby teachers who respect their identities as individuals by giving them thefreedom to ask questions, discuss ideas and experiences, and makedecisions.

Comparison of Cooperative and Teacher-Directed Approaches

This study seeks to assess and compare the effectiveness of cooperativelearning strategies and teacher-centered strategies as they relate to students’academic achievement and the use of social skills. Science achievement istaken to be the resultant outcome of the learning process as it relates toscientific course content and is measured by the score attained on the scienceachievement tests. Social skills are, “the ability of the students to interactwith each other in a classroom setting in specific ways that are societallyacceptable or valued and, at the same time, personally beneficial, mutuallybeneficial, or beneficial primarily to others” (Combs & Slaby, as cited inMichelson, Sugai, Wood &Kazdin, 1983). The present study focused on thesocial skills that are important for elementary students to acquire, such ashelping each other, individual accountability toward group members orclassmates, discussion with one another, making decisions, positiveinterdependence, and cooperation.

CLS in this study are structured strategies that give studentsopportunities to work in small groups in order to solve problems, answerquestions, and complete projects. Furthermore, CLS allow students tosupport each other in order to improve their own learning and that ofothers (Johnson & Johnson, 2001; Jolliffe, 2007). The TCS in this studyare associated chiefly with the direct transmission of knowledge betweenteacher and students, which depends upon the abilities, skills, and effortsof the students (McDonald, 2003). Student achievement is at the forefrontof teacher-centered approaches where teachers are driven to meetaccountability standards and are often forced to sacrifice the needs ofthe students to ensure content coverage and exposure to such standards.

Johnson, Johnson & Holubec (1993) compared cooperative learning andteacher-centered strategies in the classroom. Their comparison is summar-ized in Table 1, which provides insight into the differences in methods. Thecomparison between cooperative learning and teacher-centered strategiesclearly indicates the differences in teaching and goals. Teacher-centeredapproaches purport to focus on content understanding, while cooperativelearning approaches purport to focus on social development.

Students’ achievement and use of their social skills are essentialoutcomes that need to be improved in Kuwaiti schools if the next

ALI EBRAHIM300

generation of students is to be academically and socially prepared toaddress their missions and tasks in life. The improvement of theseoutcomes can occur when teachers utilize effective and appropriateteaching strategies to motivate students’ learning and thinking.

Thus, the current study seeks to detect the differences betweenimplementing cooperative learning and teacher-centered methods forstudents’ science achievement and the use of social skills in elementaryscience classes. The study sought to address the following questions:

1. Are there significant differences among fifth grade students’ scienceachievement based on using two different types of instruction:cooperative learning strategies and teacher-centered strategies?

2. Are there significant differences among fifth grade students’ use of socialskills in science classes based on using two different types of instruction:cooperative learning strategies and teacher-centered strategies?

The significance of this study is that it addresses an important problem inKuwait: improved science achievement and enhanced social skills. Theresearch findings will provide evidence to theMinistry of Education that canbe used to inform decisions about the current pressing problems regardingscience curriculum and instruction in elementary school classrooms.

METHOD

A two-group pretest–posttest design involving random assignment ofeight intact fifth grade classes to instructional treatments was used to

TABLE 1

Summary comparison of cooperative learning and teacher-centered approaches

Cooperative learning approach Teacher-centered approach

Positive interdependence No interdependenceIndividual accountability No individual accountabilityHeterogeneous HomogeneousShared leadership One appointed leaderShared responsibility for each other Responsibility for self onlyTask and maintenance emphasized Task emphasizedSocial skills directly taught Social skills assumed and ignoredTeacher observes and intervenes Teacher ignores group functioningGroups process their effectiveness No group processing


investigate the research questions. The independent variables are theinstructional treatments: teacher-centered and cooperative learning strat-egies. The dependent variables are students’ science achievement and useof social skills.

Participants

The researcher asked the Ministry of Education to randomly propose tworepresentative schools having multiple classes at each grade level, with acommon teacher for science. Each identified school randomly assignedfour different classrooms with two common science teachers for thepurpose of this study. The resulting effects were two public elementaryschools with four classroom teachers teaching two classes in the samescience unit (earth, soil, and agriculture) to female students. Teacherswere asked to utilize both teaching strategies; one randomly selected classreceived teacher-centered instruction and the other class receivedcooperative learning instruction.

The eight intact single-gender grade 5 science classes from twoseparate elementary schools consisted of 163 female students. Thestudents were between the ages of 9 and 11. The number of students ineach classroom was on average 21. It is important to remember that theaim of this study was not to compare achievement on the basis of genderbut rather to test the effectiveness of a relatively new method of teachingin the elementary schools in Kuwait.

Instructional Procedure

The researcher gave an orientation to the four teachers involved. None ofthe teachers had previously utilized cooperative strategies, but all believedthey were proficient with the TCS. The main purpose of the orientationwas to plan and discuss the best ways of using CLS in teaching the earth,soil, and agriculture unit. The orientation session included discussions onhow the teachers could motivate and encourage students to ask morequestions, depend on themselves during the learning process, andencourage student involvement in essential scientific experiences:observations, measurements, experimentation, interpretation of data, andpredictions. This orientation helped the teachers to understand the natureof CLS through the activities of the students; it also assisted them indesigning and conducting cooperative learning-centered lessons applica-ble to students’ varying intellectual levels. The researcher used a videotape of a cooperative learning setting in the USA to illustrate classroompractices, which the Kuwaiti teachers found extremely useful.

ALI EBRAHIM302

The science unit took 6 weeks to teach. The science classes met3 days per week for 45-min lessons. Each science teacher taught oneteacher-centered group and one cooperative learning group, emphasiz-ing the specified teaching and learning attributes characteristic of thespecific approach (Table 1) for 6 weeks to ensure each class receivedconsistent and equal time for instruction. Furthermore, in the begin-ning, the researcher attended all science classes to observe students’behavior and teachers’ teaching methods to ensure avoidance ofteacher bias and the appropriate and consistent use of the twoprescribed methods. He continued to attend science classes until hefelt confident that the teachers were following instructions and researchprocedures. In the traditional or TCS setting, students remained inrows, especially when taking notes or reviewing homework assign-ments. When the experimental groups met in the regular scienceclassroom, students were organized in CLS groups of four to fivestudents. Students in both settings were taught the same material in theacademic unit and the same science concepts or skills.

Data Collection Procedure

Students’ science achievement in both teaching methods was measured by aresearcher-designed achievement test given to students as a pretest and aposttest (see Appendix 1). In addition, students’ social skills weredetermined by a researcher-designed survey given as a pretest and posttestto measure the influence of both teaching methods in encouraging studentsto use their social skills in the science classroom (see Appendix 2). Theresearcher examined the validity and reliability of both instruments.

Validity and Reliability of the Instruments

Determining validity and reliability involves an inquiry to document therigorous development and evaluation of the measurement instrument.“Validity refers to the appropriateness, meaningfulness and usefulness ofthe inferences a researcher makes. Reliability refers to the consistency ofscores of answers from one administration of an instrument to another,and from one set of items to another” (Freankel & Wallen, 1993, p. 138).

Validity

The social skills survey consisted of 12 yes/no items, derived from theliterature to fulfill the rationale and rigorous development procedure


behind constructing the items. The following literature and conditionswere used to develop the specific items indicated:

� Students helping one another is mentioned in the literature as anessential skill in order that they should improve and develop inclassrooms. Slavin (1990) stated, “Students and teachers should feelthat the idea that students can help one another learn is not justapplied on occasion, but is a fundamental principle of classroomorganization” (p. 278). This skill is reflected in item 1

� Students cooperating with one another was frequently found in theliterature. The cooperation skill is represented in items 2 and 7

� Students making decisions was based on Gustafson & Meagher(1993): “Students are encouraged to explore differing perspectivesthat have shaped our country’s history by discussing the question, ‘Howshould we decide?’ rather than ‘What is the answer?’” (p. 217). Thisskill represented in item 3

� Students discussing in class was identified as a critical skill innegotiating meaning and constructing understanding. “As studentsare encouraged to jointly interpret and negotiate meaning, learningcomes alive. Constructing meaningful explanations means givingstudents regular opportunities to talk, read, write, and solve problemstogether” (Adams & Hamm, 1996, p. 10). This skill is documented initem 4

� Students caring about or accepting responsibility for each other inlearning is an important outcome that educators should help facilitatein the classroom. “Students should see one another as resources forlearning, and there should be a school-wide norm that everystudent’s learning is everyone’s responsibility, that every student’ssuccess is everyone’s success” (Slavin, 1990, p. 278). This skill isrepresented in item 5

� Making friends is a necessary skill that students should develop bothinside as well as outside the classroom. Baloche (1998) advocated,“Constructive peer relationships—described by one fourth grader assimply, ‘We learned to like each other’—are critical to the develop-ment and socialization of children and adolescents. Children withpoor peer relationships are at risk, dropping out of school and forcriminality” (Parker & Asher, 1993, p. 7). The improvement ofstudent friendships as a result of the classroom instructional methodis documented in item 6

The achievement test was constructed by the researcher to attain thepurpose of the study. The composition and focus of the items directly

ALI EBRAHIM304

reflect the content learning outcomes of the earth, soil, and agricultureunit. Next, the researcher examined the validity and reliability of the twoinstruments. The social skills survey was reviewed by three professors atKuwait University to establish face and construct validity. Theysuggested minor modifications to some items, and revisions wereperformed accordingly.

Then, six fifth grade students not in the sample of this study wereselected to go over the test questions and survey items. The researcherposed the following questions to them:

� Did you have any difficulty answering this survey and test?� Did you understand what you should do in both the survey and the

test?� Did you understand all the statements of the survey and questions of

the test?� Which statements or questions were not clear to you?

All six students gave the researcher their responses, indicating that theywere able to clearly read the instrument questions and statements. Also,they pointed out that the instructions for the test questions and the surveyitems were clear and understandable.

Reliability

Reliability is an indication of the consistency of an instrument. A test isconsidered reliable when the same results occur regardless of when thetest occurs or who does the scoring (Charles, 1995). Before conductingthis study, the researcher did a pilot study by distributing the twoinstruments among 60 female students in a fifth grade science class inKuwait. None of these students were involved in the instructionalgroups and they were selected randomly from other available fifthgrade classes.

The students were selected based on their completion of the targetscience unit for this study. The science achievement test and socialskills survey were administered to the 60 students. The reliability ofthese instruments was explored based on their responses using aCronbach’s alpha procedure for determining internal consistency. Theresults for the achievement test revealed an acceptable coefficient ofinternal consistency (α = 0.87). The exploration of the reliability ofthe social skills survey revealed an acceptable reliability coefficientof α = 0.73). Hence, both the achievement test and social skillssurvey can be considered sufficiently valid and reliable instruments to


measure Kuwaiti students’ science achievement and use of social skills infifth grade science classes.

DATA ANALYSIS

The effects of the two teaching methods (CLS and TCS) on students’science achievement and use of social skills were explored with separateone-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Students’ posttest scores onthe achievement tests and responses to the social skills survey were usedas the dependent variables, teaching approaches were used as theindependent variable, and pretest scores were used as the covariant.

Science Achievement Results

Originally, the sample of 86 students chosen for the TCS group was equalin number to the CLS group. However, the researcher could not get all therequired information for nine students in the CLS group; thus, only thedata for 78 students were used in the final analyses. All students weregiven a pretest; after a period of 6 weeks of the specific instruction, thestudents were given the posttest.

The descriptive statistics (sample sizes, means, standard deviations) forthe pretest and posttest results science achievement (Table 2) show thatthe pretest mean scores of the CLS group and TCS group are equal.However, the standard deviations are slightly different, and the posttestscores for the CLS group are higher than the mean score of the TCSgroup. ANCOVA results indicate that the adjusted posttest mean score ofthe CLS group is significantly (p = 0.026) higher than the adjustedposttest mean score of the TCS group (Table 3).

TABLE 2

Descriptive statistics (sample sizes, means, and standard deviations) of the CLS and TCSgroups’ science achievement

Teaching method

Pretest Posttest

N M SD N M SD

TCS 86 5.41 0.23 86 10.37 4.22CLS 78 5.41 0.28 78 11.53 3.76

ALI EBRAHIM306

Social Skills Results

The descriptive statistics (sample sizes, means, and standard deviations)for the pretest and posttest results for using social skills (Table 4) showthat the social skills pretest mean score of the TCS group is higher thanthe CLS group, while the social skills posttest mean score of the CLSgroup is higher than the TCS group. The ANCOVA is designed to correctfor unequal pretest results. Therefore, the posttest results were adjustedusing the pretest scores as covariants. The ANCOVA results indicate thatthe CLS group’s adjusted social skills posttest result was significantly(p = 0.001) higher than the TCS group’s posttest (Table 5).

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

The relative impact of CLS and TCS on student achievement revealed that thecooperative learning approach has more positive effects on student achieve-ment than the teacher-centered approach. This result is consistent with theresults of previous studies of Johnson & Johnson (1990) who reported that

TABLE 3

Result of the ANCOVA for the difference between the control and the experimentalgroups’ posttest for science achievement

Source Sum of squares df Mean square F p

Corrected model 997.59 2 498.79 48.53 0.001Intercept 663.02 1 663.02 64.51 0.001Pretest (covariate) 942.95 1 942.95 91.74 0.001Teaching method 52.12 1 52.12 5.07 0.026Error 1644.59 160 10.28Total 22,058.38 163

TABLE 4

Descriptive statistics (sample sizes, means, and standard deviations) of the CLS and TCSgroups’ for use of social skills

Teaching method

Pretest Posttest

N M SD N M SD

TCS 86 7.78 2.06 86 7.95 2.08CLS 78 7.62 2.28 78 9.52 2.06


over 323 studies have been conducted over the past 90 years comparing theeffects of cooperative, competitive, and teacher-centered learning situations onstudents’ achievement. The fundamental findings of these studies indicatedthat students’ productivity in cooperative learning settings is higher than inteacher-centered situations.

This finding suggests that learning is more effective when students areactively involved in sharing ideas and working cooperatively with otherstudents to complete academic tasks. Cooperative learning experiencesappear to promote higher achievement than more passive teacher-centeredexperiences, at least for female students in elementary schools, and forscience, as indicated in the current study.

It may be that young females in cooperative learning settings have a morepositive role in the learning process than they have in teacher-centeredsettings. Therefore, when students participate actively in productive learningprocesses, they are able to negotiate shared meaning and construct meaningfulunderstanding, which is not always possible in a teacher-directed approach.

CLS placemore emphasis on the students and their learning than on teacherand teaching performance. The problem-solving methods and working insmall groups appear to promote a sense of individual responsibility and a loveof challenge in the student, thereby increasing motivation for learning. Ifstudents are highly motivated to learn, their level of achievement will also behigh. Nor Azizah & Chong Poh (2000) suggested that cooperative learningcan inculcate values such as independence and love. This is what appears tohave happened in these cooperative learning groups.

Furthermore, cooperative learning experiences, unlike teacher-centeredexperiences, are more similar to experiences of everyday life. Daily lifeexperienced by students outside the school, whether with their families orfriends, is based on cooperation and mutual relations between individuals andhelps them in their attitude development. Johnson et al. (1993) proposed

TABLE 5

Result of the ANCOVA for the difference between the control and the experimentalgroups’ posttest for use of social skills

Source Sum of squares df Mean square F p

Corrected model 381.38 2 190.69 74.55 0.001Intercept 191.85 1 191.85 74.99 0.001Pretest (covariate) 281.75 1 281.75 110.14 0.001Teaching method 111.95 1 111.95 43.77 0.001Error 409.28 160 2.56Total 13,109.00 163

ALI EBRAHIM308

positive interdependence where the success of one learner is dependent on thesuccess of the other learners. People in real life do not live in isolation fromeach other, especially females who highly value interpersonal relationships.Educational experiences based on cooperative work becomemore meaningfulto them, leading to increased participation, which reflects positively onacademic achievement.

The relative influence of CLS and TCS on students’ use of socialskills revealed that there is a positive impact of cooperative learningon social skills compared to the teacher-directed approach. This resultshowed that the implementation of the cooperative learning methodwas more supportive of students’ use of their social skills in thescience classrooms than in the case of the teacher-centered method.This unsurprising result supports many previous researchers whoupheld the positive effect of cooperative learning on student friend-ships, social interactions among engagement, self-esteem, and motivation(Cohen, 1994; Cohen et al., 1990; Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Kennedy &Tipps, 1994; Lazarowitz & Karsenty, 1990; Sharan, 1996; Slavin, 1990).

Results of this study have many implications for science teachingmethods used in Kuwaiti schools. The study emphasizes the value ofusing CLS rather than TCS in teaching science due to their positiveinfluence on students’ achievement as well as the students’ social skills.Many teachers freely accept that cooperative learning approaches caneffectively influence social skills, but fewer teachers would be so inclinedto accept that cooperative approaches can effectively influence scienceachievement. However, more studies are likely to be needed to evaluatethe effect of CLS on students’ achievement, the use of the social skills,and gender in different educational levels, different science topics, andsubject areas. Clearly, the results of this study and the massive amount ofresearch results from elsewhere establish the evidence base for cooper-ative learning practices in Kuwait. Educational administrations need totake note of the research surrounding these teaching methods andformulate policy that empowers the use of cooperative learning strategiesand to fund professional development and implementation of thesepractices in classrooms.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my appreciation to all of those who have helpedme throughout the course of this study. I would also like to offer mysincere appreciation to the International Journal of Science and


Mathematics Education for giving me this opportunity to publish mystudy and also to Dr. Larry and Sharyl Yore who provided meaningfuladvice and encouragement enabling me to complete my mission.

APPENDIX 1

Ministry of Education Grade 5 Science Test for 2008-2009

Student’s Name: __________________________________ Class: 5/--

Q1. Tick ( ) in front of the correct sentence and ( X ) in front of the incorrect sentence:

___ 1. Giraffe is a creature that consumes food. ___ 2. Yellow soil is called sand. ___ 3. Mud allows air to pass through it. ___ 4. Valleys are the parts of earth that are lower than the sea’s surface. ___ 5. Sand dunes are formed by running water.

Q2. Choose the correct answer by adding ( ) in front of your choice:

1. From the (vinegar + limestone) experiment, limestone is affected by acidic rain. Why do we build the houses in Kuwait from limestone? The correct answer is:

___ 1. Kuwait’s rain is not polluted. ___ 2. Limestone resists rain. ___ 3. Kuwait has a small amount of rain. ___ 4. Kuwait has a lot of rain.

2. The phenomena that is formed as a result of the effect of wind which carries sand and soil and hits:

3. Soa'ad took a sample from the soil in her garden. She added some water to it and she left it to settle. After a while, the sample should look like which one of the following?:

ALI EBRAHIM310

Q3. Write the correct scientific term for each of the following sentences: 1. Medium at which plants grow, fix their roots, and get water. __________ 2. The movement of desert sand over planted areas which leads to the burying of plants and roads and causes traffic jams. __________ 3. Parts of earth that are higher than the sea’s surface. __________

Q4. Look at the pictures then answer the questions:

1. Write the name of the method that is used to water the plants in this picture. The plant is watered by____________________

2. You have three types of soil in front of you. The soil that is best for planting is __________. Explain your answer depending on the figures.

Q5. What would happen in the following situations:

1. Freezing of the water in the pipes?

2. Heating the fertilized soil?

Q6. Read the following story then answer the question:

Salwa went shopping. She entered a shop with wooden shelves that had wool, cotton, and silk clothes on them. Salwa bought what she needed then she went home and ate a meal that had vegetables which give her body fibers that she needs to grow.

From the story give two benefits of soil:

1. _______________________ 2. _______________________

Q7. Write two benefits of green houses:

1.________________________ 2.________________________

Q8. Look at the drawing then answer the following:

1. The arrow is pointing at ______________

2. What is the function of this part _________________

Q9. Match column (A) with column (B) by putting the correct number in front of the correct term:

BA

1. Limestone is made up of ___ sand stones 2. Quartz metal are found in ___ granite 3. Remains of dead plants and animals ___ humus

eticlac___


APPENDIX 2

Social Skills Survey

Think about your science classes for the past few weeks and respond to thefollowing statements as honestly as possible. The data collected by thissurveywill remain confidential andwill not be provided to the science teacheror others, except in a summary fashion. Listen to the instructor as he readseach numbered statement below and, using the scale provided below, recordyour response by shading the face that represents your choice, as in thefollowing example: ☺ ☹

REFERENCES

Adams, D. & Hamm, M. (1996). Cooperative learning, critical thinking andcollaboration across the curriculum (2nd ed.). Springfield: Charles Thomas.

Al-Kandari, A. (2006). To what extent science education objectives are presented inscience teachers’ lesson plans in Kuwait schools. Kuwait: Academic PublicationCouncil, University of Kuwait.

Baloche, L. (1998). The cooperative classroom: Empowering learning. Upper SaddleRiver: Prentice Hall.

Charles, C. (1995). Introduction to educational research. New York: Longman.

Yes NoI was able to help my friends who needed help duringthe science class.

☺ ☹

I was able to work with my friends together to answerquestions or to solve problems.

☺ ☹

I learned how to choose freely the best choice to solve a problem. ☺ ☹In science class, I could discuss science with my friends. ☺ ☹In science class, I usually cared about my friends’ understanding. ☺ ☹I learned in science class how to make friendships. ☺ ☹I learned in science class how to work with othersto solve problems or answer questions.

☺ ☹

I did not like to work in groups because my friends inthe group were slow to catch on.

☺ ☹

I did not like to work in groups because my friends in thegroup were impatient with me.

☺ ☹

I did not like to work in groups because my friends in thegroup were playing while I was working on answering questions.

☺ ☹

I did not like to work in groups because it took too muchtime from me to teach my friends the correct answers.

☺ ☹

I did not like to work in groups because my friends inthe group would not allow me to talk when I hada different way to solve a problem.

☺ ☹

ALI EBRAHIM312

Cohen, E. G. (1994). Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom.New York: Teachers College Press.

Cohen, E. G., Lotan, R. & Catanzarite, L. (1990). Treating status problems in cooperativeclassrooms. In S. Sharon (Ed.), Cooperative learning theory and research (pp. 203–230).New York: Praeger.

Effandi, Z. & Zanaton, I. (2007). Promoting cooperative learning in science andmathematics education: A Malaysian perspective. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics,Science & Technology Education, 3(1), 35–39.

Freankel, J. & Wallen, N. (1993). How to design and evaluate research in education. NewYork: McGraw-Hill.

Gassem, S. A. (2003). The effectiveness of using cooperative learning strategy in teachingscience on achievement and scientific thinking: An experimental study in the State ofKuwait. A Series of Psychological and Educational Studies (Vol. 6). Muscat, Oman:Sultan Qaboos University, Collage of Education.

Gustafson, M. H. & Meagher, L. Y. (1993). American’s youngest citizens: Close up forgrades 1–8. The Social Studies, 84(5), 213–217.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement. In S.Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 23–37). New York:Praeger.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1993). Cooperative learning and feedback intechnology-based interaction. In J. V. Demy & G. C. Sales (Eds.), Interactiveinstruction and feedback (pp. 133–157). Englewood Cliffs: Educational ElementaryPublications.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Holubec, E. J. (1993). Cooperation in the classroom(6th ed.). Edina: Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. S. (2000). Cooperative learning methods:A meta-analysis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html.

Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (2001). What is cooperative learning? Minneapolis,MN: Cooperative Learning Center, University of Minnesota. Retrieved from http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl.html.

Jolliffe, W. (2007). Cooperative learning in the classroom: Putting it into practice.Thousand Oaks: Paul Chapman Publishing.

Jones, G. (1990). Cognitive conflict and cooperative learning. Paper presented at theAnnual Meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching. ERICDocument Reproduction Service No. ED 319 598.

Kennedy, L. M. & Tipps, S. (1994). Guiding children’s learning of mathematics (7th ed.).Belmont: Wadsworth.

Lazarowitz, R. & Karsenty, G. (1990). Cooperative learning and student’s academicachievement, process skills, learning environment, and self-esteem in tenth-gradebiology classrooms. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp.143–149). New York: Praeger.

Martin, M. O., Mullis, I. V. S., Gonzalez, E. J. & Chrostowski, S. J. (2004). TIMSS 2003international science report: Findings from IEA’s Trends in International Mathematicsand Science Study at the fourth and eighth grades. Boston: TIMSS & PIRLSInternational Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.

McDonald, J. P. (2003). Teachers studying students work: Why and how? Phi DeltaKappan, 84(2), 121–127.


http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html

http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html

http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl.html

http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl.html

Michael, J. W. (1997). Classroom reward structures and academic performance. Review ofEducational Research, 47, 87–98.

Michelson, L., Sugai, D., Wood, R. & Kazdin, A. (1983). Social skills assessment andtraining with children: An empirically based handbook. New York: Plenum.

Nor Azizah, M. S. & Chong Poh, W. (2000). A review of cooperative learning researchand its implication for teacher education. Proceedings of the International Conferenceon Teaching and Learning, pp. 1266–1289.

Parker, J. G. & Asher, S. R. (1993). Beyond group acceptance: Friendship and friendshipquality as distinct dimensions of peer adjustment. In W. H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.),Advances In Personal Relationships (Vol. 4). London: Kingley.

Reys, R. E., Suydam, M. N., Lindquist, M. M. & Smith, N. L. (1998). Helping childrenlearning mathematics (5th ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.

Sharan, S. (1990). Cooperative learning: A perspective on research and practice. In S.Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 285–298). New York:Praeger.

Sharan, S. (1996). Mutually assistant teams for implementing instructional innovations inschool. Lifelong Learning in Europe, 1(2), 104–122.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Upper SaddleRiver: Prentice Hall.

Slavin, R. E. (1991). Student team learning: A practical guide to cooperative learning.Washington: National Education Association.

Kuwait UniversityKuwait, KuwaitE-mail: [email protected]

ALI EBRAHIM314

Documents

THE EFFECT OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES ON ELEMENTARY STUDENTS’ SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT AND SOCIAL SKILLS IN KUWAIT