ACHIEVEMENT IN A HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS CLASS

This study of college-bound llth graders assessed the feasibility and effectiveness of instruction that used a structured cooperative learning technique. The students worked in dyads with scripts that contained two learning situations with two roles: (1) explainer and checker; and (2) solver and checker. Both students then worked on summary questions and homework. Verbal interaction influenced learning and appeared to be a mediator of the effects of student characteristics on achievement. Specifically, the study focused on two questions: (1) Can an effective program using dyadic studying techniques be designed for a 11! gh school course in higher mathematics; and (7.) When high school scudents are trained to use a dyadic studying strategy for learning from their text, what is the nature of their verbal interaction and does this interaction change over time? Two groups were compared using the same texts, tests, and teacher. Both questions were answered affirmatively and supported statistically. The study concluded that: (1) students can be expected to respond positively to the experience and to work cooperatively and productively together; and (2) 947. of the time students had on-task interaction. Numerous tables contain specific statistical information. Contains 47 references. (GW) *********************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. *********************************************************************** Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association April 1993, Atlanta, GA STRUCTURED COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND ACHIEVEMENT IN A HIGH SCHOOL MATHEMATICS CLASS Kathleen F. Berg University of Hawaii Curriculum Research & Development Group 1776 University Ave., Honolulu, HI 98622 The present study was undertaken to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of instruction that uses a structured cooperative learning technique in an upper level high school mathematics class. In addition, the study was designed to explore the nature of students' verbal interaction within this cooperative structure and how that interaction changes over time. The term "cooperative learning" is applied to a diversity of instructional formats, but it typically involves two or more students interacting to learn academic material. Even though the methods differ in structure, they are all used with the expectation that doing so will increase motivation, more actively involve students with the material to be learned, promote higher achievement, and improve relations among students (Cuseo, 1990; Kagan, 1985). Results of research over the years, from the 1920s through the 1980s, have been consistent with these expectations for the achievement of academic, social, and personal goals (see Johnson & Johnson, 1974, 1989; Johnson; Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981; Ma ller, 1929; Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1978, 1980, 1983). Researchers and educators advocate the inclusion of cooperative learning in the educational system along with competitive and individualistic class structures (Damon, 1984; Kagan, Zahn, Widarnan, Schwarzwald, & Tyrrell, 1985). Cooperative learning has been promoted as a successful teaching technique to cope with problems of achievement heterogeneity encountered when schools abandon academic tracking and when academically challenged students are mainstreamed (Slavin, 1985). Its use has even been mandated by some school districts and departments of education (e.g., California State Department of Education, 1985). Numerous professional organizations devoted to the study of cooperative learning have been formed (e.g., the International Association for the Study of Cooperation in Education, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development Cooperative Learning Network, and the American Educational Research Association Special Interest Group on Cooperative Learning), and the latest introductory educational psychology textbooks (e.g., Dembo, 1991; Good & Brophy, 1990) include lengthy discussions of cooperative learning techniques and effectiveness. Interest in its potential continues to grow. "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY Othca of Educabonal Research and Imogovement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION Kathleen F. Berg CENTER (ERIC) ;VI t.8 Ot This docurnant has been reproduced as Thocerved from the person or orpenuation originating It 0 Mawr chanEWs have bean mode 10 mOtOve reproduChOn Quality BEST COP'l AVAILABLE TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC). " 2 Points of yam or ownons slated . n thadocte mint do not womanly worsint othclal OERI positon or policy Although the research to date has been very positive, what seems not to have been taken into account in the sweeping generalizations that have appeared in the literature are the differential effects due to different cooperative learning techniques, different subject matter, different grade levels, and different background characteristics of students (Kagan, et al., 1985). In their review of the research on cooperative learning and academic achievement in secondary schools, Newmann and Thompson (1987) cite widely different success rates for five different cooperative learning techniques, ranging from a high of 89% advantageous comparisons with controls for Student TeamsAchievement Divisions techniques to a low of 17% for Jigsaw. They note that most of the research has occurred in elementary schools and that there is a dearth of research in grades 10 to 12, especially. Only 6 of the 27 studies in their review were done in grades 10 to 12, and 4 of those were done in science. Only one dealt with mathematics at that level. There is ample evidence that high school teachers are less willing than others to use cooperative methods in their classrooms, thinking that they take too much time, do not work with their older and more sophisticated students, or create a chaotic classroom situation (Davis, 1985; Hibbard & Baron, 1990; Lake, 1986; Newmann & Thompson, 1987). The study reported here addresses this need for research at the upper high school level and was designed to be a demonstration of the feasibility and effectiveness of using cooperative techniques with high school students. The participants of the study were 11th graders in an Algebra II/Trigonometry class. Although there has been much research on the structural aspects of cooperative learning (e.g., goal and incentive structures, accountability), less attention has been given to the various other social and cognitive aspects. Some of the researchers who have been looking at these other aspects of cooperative learning have focused on peer interaction (see Webb, 1989, 1991). They found that a few kinds of verbal interaction were consistently related to achievement: giving content-related explanations (positive correlation), receiving a lower level of help than requested (negative correlation), and off-task discussion (negative correlation). Not only did verbal interaction influence learning, it appeared to be a mediator of the effects of student characteristics (e.g., ability, personality, gender) on achieyement. Studies to determine what kind of interaction promotes higher achievement and what variables predict such interaction suggest that if verbal behavior can be changed through some sort of classroom intervention, then achievement could be increased. These researchers are looking for ways to manipulate group composition with respect to such variables as ability, gender, and personality in order to maximize students' achievement by providing optimum conditions for beneficial peer interaction. There are few such studies, however, that have examined the nature of peer interactions and their effect on achievement over time. Most studies have been only about two weeks long and with students much younger than those in grades 10 to 12.