running head: cooperative learning strategies using ... · cooperative learning...

Running head: COOPERATIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES

Using Cooperative Learning Strategies to Increase Students’

Participation and Positive Learning Outcomes

By

Abdulmajeed Aldosari

A Master’s Project Submitted in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Education

Department of Curriculum and Instruction State University of New York at Fredonia

Fredonia, New York

May 2016

State University of New York at Fredonia

Department of Curriculum and Instruction

CERTIFICATION OF THESIS/PROJECT CAPSTONE WORK

ii

We, the undersigned, certify that this project entitled, USING COOPERATIVE LEARNING

STRATEGIES TO INCREASE STUDENTS' PARTICIPATION AND POSITIVE LEARNING

OUTCOMES by ABDULMAJEED ALDO SARI, Candidate for the Degree of Master of Science in

Education, Curriculum and Instruction in Inclusive Education, is acceptable in form and content and

demonstrates a satisfactory knowledge of the field covered by this project.

Master's Project Advisor

EDU 691 Course Instructor

Depaitment of Language, Learning and Leadership

Depaitment of Curriculum and Instruction

Dean Christine Givner, Ph.D.

College of Education

State University ofNew York at Fredonia

Date

Date

iii

Abstract

There is a need for high-quality education in Saudi Arabia for the next generation to equip them

for facing the challenges of the developed world, and traditional learning techniques are unable

to perform well. One of the most powerful ways to increase student participation in class is

through the creation of a cooperative learning environment. Research into the general

effectiveness of cooperative learning techniques suggests that cooperative learning is superior to

traditional learning in terms of academic achievement. Many schools in the United States and

other developed countries are effectively implementing cooperative learning techniques to

increase students’ classroom participation and positive learning outcomes. This study was

conducted during the summer of 2015 in Saudi Arabia. The participants of this study were 24

students in the fifth-grade. The research was at a school in Sulail City of the Riyadh. The

selected model consisted of pre-test and post-test activities. A quantitative approach was used in

this study to gather empirical evidence on the effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies in

math class. The students were divided into two groups, the experimental group and the control

group. Each student's participation was analyzed individually. All students were tested by the

same pre-test and post-test. According to the results, there was an increase in the student

participation and learning outcomes by the experimental group as compared to the control group.

This research indicates the need for further development of teachers’ pedagogical skills in Saudi

Arabia.

iv

Table of Contents

Abstract……………………………………………………………………...………………….ii

Introduction…………………………………………………………………………………....1

Research Question…………...………………………………………………………………1

Significance to the Field………..……………………………………………………………1

Personal Significance…………………..…………………………………………………….3

Literature Review…………………………………………………………………….……....4

Cooperative Learning……………………………………………………………………..….5

Effectiveness of cooperative learning…………..…………………...….................................5

Effectiveness of cooperative learning in mathematics………………………………………10

Social Interdependence Theory for Cooperative Learning …………………………………12

The Role Cooperative learning in Encouraging Classroom Participation…………………..13

Drawbacks to Cooperative Learning……………,,…………………………………………14

Fifth Grade Students……………………………………………………………………….,.15

Methodology……………………………………………………………………………….......17

Participants……………………………………………..........................................................17

Setting…………………………………………………………………………………….....18

Design……………………………………………………………………………………….19

Data Collection………………………………………………………………………………20

Data Analysis………………………………………………………………………………..21

Findings……………………………….………………………………………………………..22

v

Participation……………………………………………………………………………….22

Positive Learning Outcomes………………………………………………………………24

Discussion ………………………………………………………………………………….25

Implications for Mathematics Teaching in Saudi Arabia……...………………………….28

Implications for further research……….…………………………………………………31

Limitation …………………………………………………………………………………36

References…………………………………………………………………………………....38

Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………...42

Appendix A: Math classroom chart……………………………………………………….43

Appendix B: Math classroom chart…...…………………………………………………..44

Appendix C: Textbook………………………………………….……………….……..…45

Appendix D: A spreadsheet………………………………………………….….………..47

Appendix E: Pre/ post test……….……………………………………………………….48

Appendix F: Classrome tests results..……………………....…………………………….49

COOPERATIVE LEARNING STRATEGIES

1

Introduction

Many academics consider class participation evidence of active learning or engagement

that benefits learning, critical thinking, writing, appreciation of cultural differences, time

management, and interpersonal listening and speaking skills (Czekanski& Wolf, 2013). A lack of

participation from students may indicate that they are not motivated to learn. This could stem

from a number of factors in students, including peer groups; interest in other things, such as

music and sports; or family situations (Drakeford, 2012). One approach that has been studied by

many researchers to increase student participation and achievement is cooperative learning

(Maher, 2010). Ebrahim (2010) noted that, “Cooperative learning approaches create excellent

opportunities for students to engage in problem-solving with the help of other group members”

(p. 294).

Research Question

Many schools are effectively implementing cooperative learning techniques to increase

students’ classroom participation and positive learning outcomes in the United States and other

developed countries. The aim of this research is to investigate the question, does using

cooperative learning strategies with Saudi boys of ages 10-11increase student participation and

positive learning outcomes in math class?

Significance to the Field

One of the most powerful ways to increase student participation in class is through the

creation of a cooperative learning environment. Cooperative learning was described by

Kotsopoulos (2010) as an environment that allows students to participate together to reach both

common and individual academic goals. Non-cooperative learning is where students are not


2

allowed to participate completely in class, due to academic and social factors (Kotsopoulos,

2010).

Compared to competitive or individual work, cooperation leads to “higher group and

individual achievement, higher-quality reasoning strategies, more frequent transfer of these from

the group to individual members . . . and more new ideas and solutions to problems (Maher,

2010, p. 3). According to Hooker (2011), “Students working in the small peer-led collaborative

learning groups had improved completion rates” (p. 223). Kotospoulos noted that while it is

possible for students in a non-cooperative learning environment to succeed in the group goals,

the lack of control that students have may prevent them from reaching their individual goals

(Kotsopoulos, 2010).

Even though cooperative learning does involve giving more autonomy to the students, it is

not chaotic. The teacher still has many responsibilities to lead, instruct, and encourage

participation. Research has shown that students are not completely responsible for participation

in a mathematics classroom and that the teacher’s instructional methods greatly affect how

students interact with the teacher and each other (Gottler 2010). Roberts and Friedman (2013)

reported that one of the ways that teachers can encourage students to be involved in the class is

to set up classes and lessons with the specific goal of student involvement. Law (2011) indicate

that “cooperative learning with teacher-guided instruction is more effective in helping young

children to learn than cooperative learning with minimal guidance” (p.402)

According to Roberts and Friedman (2013), the presence of classroom discussion

suggests the learner is actively involved in the learning process, and a lack of discussion and

participation can hurt a class and the learning process. Patchen (2005) described classroom

participation as being critical to learning because it promotes communication and a positive


3

learning environment. The teacher must scaffold activities to push and challenge students to

learn (Gottler, 2010). In a cooperative learning classroom, the teacher must also be aware of

what is happening in groups when the students are working together to ensure that these

interactions are effective for all students, and when not effective, interventions should be created

to help these students learn (Kotsopoulos, 2010).

Drakeford (2010) noted that students from different ethnicities, racial and economic

groups, ages, and academic levels have benefitted from cooperative learning. Kostopoulis (2010)

concluded that schools should encourage learning for all students, and that “pedagogical

strategies should work toward neutralizing the effects of power relations that restrict some

learners” (p. 138).

Personal Significance

I am a teacher in a primary school of Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and have taught

mathematics for the last seven years. Most of the schools in KSA do not apply the cooperative

learning method in education. Even if some schools are trying to use cooperative learning, they

are not applying it correctly. Schools are not prepared for this, and teachers are not trained to

implement cooperative learning strategies.

Cooperative learning is an excellent way to improve the productivity of a classroom and

creates a friendly environment in class. Students who partake in cooperative learning, learn

considerably more, remember it for a long time, and have improved critical-thinking skills over

their old-style learning counterparts.

There is a dire need of high-quality education in Saudi Arabia, and traditional learning

techniques cannot address these challenges. It has become more important than ever before to

implement cooperative learning strategies in our schools. Most of the teachers in Saudi Arabia,


4

including myself, have difficulty in stimulating the participation of students in our classrooms.

Especially in mathematics, cooperative learning is necessary to prepare students for reasoning,

discussion, and thinking. Students lose their interest in class when teachers use the traditional

educational strategy of lecture and direct instruction because the students just listen and are not

active. The challenge for teachers is, how to improve the quality of education with new teaching

strategies? This study provides empirical evidence on the usefulness of cooperative learning

strategies to escalate students’ participation in math class thereby improving students’ learning

outcomes.

Literature Review

Cooperative learning is one instructional method that can be used to facilitate active

learning among children, an important aspect of mathematics that is highly appreciated by

mathematics educators and researchers (Artut, 2009). Several studies have indicated that learning

in cooperative groups effectively improves children’s mathematics abilities (Artut, 2009).

According to Souvignier & Kronenberger (2007) “We expected that achievement in mathematics

and science can generally be enhanced by cooperative learning” (p.758). According to Drakeford

(2010) “Observations from a study performed using two ninth and tenth grade students indicate

that cooperative learning techniques involving classroom-integrated extracurricular activities and

real life applications increase students’ participation” (p.239). Patchen (2005) described the

importance of classroom participation as being critical to learning when she reported “Present, it

(participation) creates—communication, collaboration, confrontation, collusion—

comprehension; absent, instruction flounders. Understanding is debilitated, and community is

next to impossible to construct” (p. 43).


5

Cooperative Learning

Slavin(1984), one of the leading developers of cooperative learning, describes

cooperative learning as,

A set of instructional methods in which students are encouraged and required to work

together on academic tasks. Cooperative learning methods may be as simple as having

students sit together to discuss or help one another with classroom tasks, or they may

be quite complex. They may use group rewards, as in group contingencies, or may not

do so. (p. 31).

According to Bolukbaş, Keskin& Polat (2011) “Cooperative learning is an in-class

learning approach which is used to help learners develop a positive image both for themselves

and their peers, and to improve problem solving and critical thinking skills in order to encourage

learners in terms of social skills based on cooperation”(p.330). Sometimes cooperative learning

is defined as simply a group of people working together, but it is not always that a group of

people working together is collaborative. Johnson and David (1994) have identified elements

that constitute cooperative learning. They are listed below.

Face to face Interactions. Learners are encouraged to use both verbal and non-verbal

communications when explaining learning materials and ideas (Johnson and David, 1994).

Through activities that bring them together face-to-face, they are able to discuss and do their

assignments. However, face-to-face does not necessarily mean literally eye-to-eye; interactions

can be over the phone, via emails or even Skype so long as learners are interacting with one

another (Johnson and David, 1994).

Positive Interdependence. According to Johnson and David (1994), when working

together as group learners get a sense of belonging and feel responsible for their actions. This is


6

promoted by the feeling of “we are in this together”. As a result, learners discover that the grade

of the group is dependent on each one of them (Jones & Jones, 2008). In positive

interdependence, it is important to ensure that the success of the individual reflects on the

success of the group as well.

Group Processing. Learners are given the opportunity to reflect on how they behaved in

the group activity and assess how much they have learned. In this, they are able to identify the

extent to which the collaborative skills are utilized (Jones & Jones, 2008). Additionally, the role

of communication is also important in this regard. It is important for group members to have

open communication lines. Communication is also important in ensuring that concerns and

complaints are expressed within the group context. Communication is also important in ensuring

that effective working relationships are enhanced within the group to ensure that conflicts are

avoided.

Individual Accountability. According to Jones & Jones (2008), Coalition when learners

are working together, they are assigned different roles, which they carry out to ensure that the

group achieves its objective. Consequently, the student becomes accountable for their

contribution within the group. Clearly defined roles help learners to know what they are

responsible for both as an individual and as a group (Jones & Jones, 2008). It is also important

for group members to be influential in making decisions that will enhance trust and reliability

among group members.

Negative Interdependence. Negative interdependence is an important element in

cooperative learning. It is an element that brings out the concept of competition within a group

context (Kagan, 1995). This competition element in cooperative learning may be misunderstood

by some people. However, it is an important issue in enhancing productivity and work progress


7

among individuals in the group. Competition ensures that individuals maintain the focus that

they need to achieve the goals and objectives of the learning process in the long run.

History of Cooperative Learning. Cooperative learning was introduced in 1959 by

James Coleman. In 1984, Robert Slavin developed the work of Coleman in a research that he

called Student Team Learning. Slavin describes cooperative learning as programs of instructions,

which students utilize to help them master education content. According to Slavin, cooperative

learning has the ability to capitalize on characteristics of development in adolescents and harness

their enthusiasm, orientation, and activity within set structures. He further adds that there are

many methods that can be applied in the cooperative method of teaching and learning in all

subject areas across the different levels, but their success is dependent on individual student

responsibility for the success of the group. In his conclusion, Slavin summarizes concepts of

cooperative learning concerning learners, groups, and the techniques used.

Teachers are often skeptical on implementing the cooperative method of learning as they

fear the loss of classroom control that comes with it. However, the method has proven to be very

effective in teaching skills like leadership, communication and improvement of academic

achievement.

Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning. When Kostopoulis’ (2010) conclusions

regarding classroom dynamics, such as power relationships and group dynamics, are controlled

for and taken into consideration by the teacher, and individual differences are addressed, then

cooperative learning has the potential to be a truly powerful tool for student learning in a number

of disciplines, such as: science (Ebrahim, 2010; Acar & Tarhan, 2018), English (Galton,

Hargreaves, & Pell, 2009), social studies (Salako, Eze, & Adu, 2013) and mathematics (Ke &

Grabowski, 2007). According to Alexander, Lindlow & Schock (2008) “Cooperative learning is


8

widely recognized as a teaching strategy that promotes socialization and learning among students

from kindergarten to college and across different subject areas”(p. 18).

Salako, Eze, and Adu (2013) researched the effectiveness of cooperative learning

strategies on the knowledge and attitudes of multicultural concepts in social studies by using a

pretest-posttest experiment with two groups. The participants were 126 junior secondary students

from two schools in Nigeria, of both genders, with ages from 13-18. A thirty-item pretest was

created from the educational curriculum of the students. The control group of 63 students

received the traditional, lecture-type, teacher-centered education, and an experimental group of

63 students was given instruction that incorporated cooperative learning. Both the control and

experimental group were given a posttest following the instruction about multicultural social

studies. The students who used the cooperative learning strategy had significantly higher scores

than those who did not (the control group). This suggested that there was much potential for

cooperative learning in the Nigerian social studies classroom for more students, rather than the

typical result of a high level of learning for a small number of motivated students, which was

common in traditional, lecture-type classroom environments.

Additionally, such results also show that traditional classroom types that did not

incorporate collaborative learning into their strategies suffered from holding back the potential of

their growth. In this regard, the potential in collaborative classrooms was enhanced due to the

productivity that these classes showed. The students in these classes showed a high level of

learning that was reflected in their performance in the classroom. The multicultural concepts that

were shown in the Nigerian social studies classrooms also showed the role of psychological

elements such as attitudes and emotions in enhancing productivity and effective results, in the


9

long run. The role of psychological elements in enhancing better understanding in the classroom

is dependent on the abilities of the students to interact with other students effectively.

Acar and Tarhan (2007) investigated the effects of cooperative learning on students’

understanding of metallic bonding. A pretest-posttest experiment was conducted among 57

students in 9th grade (approximately 15 years old) from two different classes in a high school in

Izmir, Turkey. These 57 students were separated into two groups, a control, and an experimental

group, where the teacher taught the experimental group using cooperative learning strategy, and

the other group was taught using a more traditional, teacher-centered lecture approach. The

instrument consisted of 10 multiple-choice questions as a pretest. Items were selected based on

the results of interviews about what students had difficulty answering or what areas of the

subject were commonly confused. The instrument was reviewed by experts in chemistry

education, as well as high school chemistry teachers, and piloted by a group of 142 randomly

selected students in another school. After the posttest, a random sampling of ten students in the

control group and six students in the experimental group were interviewed in twenty-minute

semi-structured interviews to determine why they answered the questions the way that they

did,in order to increase reliability of the test and to see how effective instruction was on the

subject of metallic bonding (Acar and Tarhan, 2007). The results showed an average score of

78.60 for the experimental group and 54.33 for the control group, which was a result of using

cooperative learning (Acar and Tarhan, 2007). The posttest interviews about their experiences

showed that the cooperative learning environment allowed students to interact with each other

and their teacher and supported learning. The researchers concluded that textbooks in Turkey

should incorporate more activities and active student learning materials than in the past to

support learning and increase students’ social skills.


10

Ebrahim (2010) conducted a study of the effects of cooperative learning strategies on

elementary students’ science achievement and social skills in Kuwait. Participants were 163

female elementary students between 9 to 11 years old in the 5th grade. Four teachers, two in each

school, each taught one randomly selected class the control (traditional strategy) and one

randomly selected class the experimental variable (instruction in cooperative learning), for a total

of eight classroom. The teachers were given orientation and instruction on how best to use the

cooperative learning strategy. The dependent variable, understanding of agricultural science, was

assessed through a pretest-posttest design. Classes met six weeks for 45 minutes each meeting

for instruction. After the six weeks, students were given a posttest assessment. The experimental

group, which received cooperative learning based instruction, scored significantly higher than

the control group. Finally, a 12-item social skills survey was given to the students before and

after the course in order to measure development of such items as the ability to communicate

effectively in class or share ideas. This social skills survey also showed a greater development

for the experimental group (those who had been instructed in a cooperative learning

environment). Ebrahim (2010) concluded from his research that students who receive instruction

in cooperative learning methods are not only more likely to develop social skills needed for

success in their academic careers but are also more likely to develop a greater understanding of

science content as well.

Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning in Mathematics. Research into the general

effectiveness of cooperative learning through pretest-posttest research designs, suggests that

cooperative learning is superior to traditional learning in terms of academic achievement (Acar

& Tarhan, 2008; Salako et al., 2013) and social development (Ebrahim, 2010). Cooperative

learning has positive effects on learning mathematical concepts (Hooker, 2011). Artut (2019)


11

concluded that, “The cooperative learning lesson plans used in the program allowed the children

to develop both their mental and motorskills as they incorporated literature, art, and mathematics

at the same time” (p.377). Mevarech (1985) indicated that, “mathematics achievement is affected

by the team treatment and not by Mastery Learning Strategy” (p.376).

Technology has, according to some researchers, great potential to help the development

of cooperative learning outcomes for students. Ke and Grabowski (2007) created a study to

investigate the possibility of combining computer games and cooperative learning to motivate

students and increase math achievement. The participants were 125 fifth graders from six schools

in Pennsylvania. The researchers created a pretest-posttest assessment that was approved by a

group of fifth grade teachers for validity. In addition to the pretest-posttest instruments, the

researchers modified a survey to measure the students’ attitudes towards math, which was also

given as part of the pretest-posttest assessment. The study was conducted for 4 weeks, and

classes met twice a week for 40 minutes each meeting. The experimental group met for 10

minutes in pairs to compare understandings of the game and practice. For the last 30 minutes,

students participated in a game competitively, in their pair-teams. The control group was given

the same amount of instruction as the experimental group, but used more conventional paper and

pencil drills. The results showed that math games in this cooperative style did help the students

to raise their scores and the cooperative aspect of the design did have an important impact on the

results. Attitudes towards math were also helped through this design, according to the attitude

assessment survey.

These surveys show the nature of effectiveness and efficiency that cooperative learning

has in the study of mathematics in classrooms around the world. The concepts of positive

interdependence are clearly shown in this context. Positive interdependence enhances the


12

elementary comprehension of instructions and instruments that the students were given. The

interdependence and collaboration shown among students in these classes enabled students to

become more proactive than before and as such record better results.

Social Interdependence Theory for Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning is a means of teaching in which students of different capabilities are

put together to enhance interactive learning processes. In this regard, they are rewarded as a

group on the level of their performances. There are many theories that are used to enhance

cooperative learning. However, the most important and relevant to this study is the social

interdependence theory. This theory explains that social interdependence among individuals in a

classroom context exists when the manner in which goals are achieved in the group setting is

dependent on people in the group (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). In this regard, the manner in

which an individual’s goals are achieved depends on the actions of other members in the group.

Therefore, social interdependence in classroom settings may be positive or negative. Positive

interdependence enhances cooperation while negative interdependence enhances competition

(Kagan, 1989). Johnson and Johnson (1999) explain that positive interdependence is achieved

when individuals in the group work towards enhancing each other’s goals. Negative

interdependence is achieved when competition enhances actions that result to achieving goals

and objectives, in the long run.

The structural elements of social interdependence theory include actions, psychological

processes, interaction patterns and outcomes. Psychological processes are important in enhancing

self-interest, self-belief, and emotional investments (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). These processes

also ensure that individuals can enhance committed relationships in the group context, thus

enhancing the learning process.


13

This theory relates to this study because it will describe the social interdependencies that

will be common in the classroom context. This theory will also enhance the manner in which

teachers in the classroom will use cooperative learning processes to enhance effectiveness.

The Role Cooperative learning in Encouraging Classroom Participation

According to Alhaidari (2006) “Using cooperative learning does not alter the teacher’s

role in negative ways, such as sitting around and doing nothing in their classroom” (p. 23).

Drakeford (2012) conducted research into the effectiveness of cooperative learning on the

classroom participation of at-risk American high school students through a qualitative research

design. The two students in this study were described by their teachers as being shy and

unwilling to participate in discussions and other classroom activities.To encourage participation,

students were given individual counselling into the importance of academics and participation as

well as their personal growth. The study took place over a period of eight weeks, with four

weeks of data collection to reach a “baseline” number of minutes of participation (defined as

note taking, large group communication, or small group communication), then another four

weeks with the counselling intervention. Data was collected through observation of the students

with randomly selected groups of students in the class. Using a stopwatch, the researcher timed

the amount of participation that the students were demonstrating through the activities and

recorded the results. Number of minutes of participation went from an initial 2 to 5 total minutes

in a 15 minute activity during the first four baseline sessions, to the target of 15 minutes in a 15

minute activity by the end of the study. The findings were that using individualized counselling,

with the emphasis on the importance of participation in class and academic work, the level of

participation was increased for these students. Also cooperative learning methods increase the

classroom participation. The research shows that simply asking students to work together is not


14

enough because the teacher is still in charge of creating a positive, encouraging and safe place

for students to interact with each other (Patchen, 2005). The teacher must scaffold activities to

push and challenge students to learn (Gottler, 2010) and be aware of what is happening in groups

when the students are working together to ensure that these interactions are effective for all

students, and when not effective, interventions should be created to help these students learn

(Kotsopoulos, 2010).

Drawbacks to Cooperative Learning

Kostopoulis (2010), while not being critical of cooperative learning, believed that it was

not a solution for all students, and that it would not, in itself, solve all of the issues relating to

participation in the classroom. In a year-long qualitative study of cooperative learning groups,

Kostopoulis videotaped and audio recorded data to determine the amount of participation in the

collaborative environment for an eighth grade mathematics classroom of 34 students in a wealthy

area in a city in Canada. The researcher also personally attended the classroom instruction. The

students were asked to write journal entries to reflect on their experiences in the cooperative

learning groups and were interviewed at the end of the school year.

There were a number of interesting findings from this research. First, there were ways

that the students would pretend to participate, but not really do so, or would exclude other

students from discussion or collaboration. Second, in every group there would be one student

who was the leader, which Kostopoulis (2010) called the foreman, and the other members of the

group who did the work, the laborers. Often, the foreman did not engage with the work but he or

she gave instructions instead. The laborers usually worked independently of each other for the

task, and some were excluded due to a perceived lower ability in mathematics or social factors.

In summary, while the content of the lessons themselves were based on practical, real-world


15

knowledge and were designed to encourage cooperative learning, true collaboration did not

happen as much as planned. These findings indicated that student behavior may need to be

carefully monitored so that every student has a chance to participate equally.

In early grades, learners get the opportunity to work together, learn from one another, and

reach for a unanimous decision. Learners in fifth grade are at their climax of development and in

the process of forming attitudes. As a result, the learners develop attitudes and opinions about

matters of life and begin to understand concepts with much ease. The next section will explain

the 5th grade cognitive, social/emotional growth, particularly as this is an important aspect of the

impact of cooperative learning.

Fifth Grade Students

The fifth grade is the 5th year of education at school in many countries. Students are

mostly at the age of 10 – 11 years. Students at this age usually have to do long division and to

work with the multiplication of fractions and decimals in their school’s math curriculum. Also,

these students have preliminary experience with percentages and ratios. They consider

themselves responsible for the failure or success of any given task. They also need to develop a

direction of achievement that will shape their response to school and other encounters of life for

many years (Eccles, 1999).

The cognitive level of fifth graders. Cognitive development is the development of the

abilities of the brain for thinking, learning, reasoning, and memorizing. In cognitive development

theory, cooperation essentially leads to cognitive growth. Cognitive growth can be boosted by

the alignment of numerous perspectives as the individuals work in a group to achieve collective

goals. Piaget and Vygotsky have observed that cooperative learning results in intellectual growth

and cognitive development (Johnson, Johnson & Smith, 1998).


16

Peer learning therefore can be very useful to cater for the loss of attention (Johnson,

Johnson & Smith, 1998). Fifth grade individuals suffer from low attention retention due to the

high activities they are involved in physically (Galton, Hargreaves, & Pell, 2009). In addition,

they like telling and showing things that they know. Therefore, it makes cooperative learning an

ideal method that can yield high performance at this stage.

By using cooperative learning, the role of a teacher in a classroom does not change. The

teacher has the responsibility of taking classroom control and provides guidelines to promote

meaningful socialization (Galton, Hargreaves, & Pell, 2009). Teachers assist learners to reach

specific cognitive goals that are important in lessons to enhance discussions. In a classroom

setting, both collaborative and content strategies are applied regardless of whether the students

will work as a group or an individual. Teachers inform students of the strategies they will take in

order to achieve performance in a lesson (Galton, Hargreaves, & Pell, 2009).

Mathematics curriculum and curricular expectations in Saudi Arabia

The government, working towards the development of human resources, directed the

Ministry of Education to develop curriculum, particularly mathematics curriculum from primary

school. The fifth grade book was built to develop solid math skills with measurable results, to

refine problem-solving abilities (Jeddah International School, 2015).

This literature review examined some of the research that has been conducted to provide

evidence of the efficiency of cooperative learning strategies on participation and achievement in

classes. The research has shown that cooperative learning is more effective than a traditional

lecture approach in both the teaching of concepts and content and in increasing social

interactions, motivation and social skills (Ebrahim, 2010; Celikten, Ipekcioglu, Ertepinar, &


17

Geban, 2012; Acar & Tarhan, 2008). Cooperative learning alone is not necessarily the perfect

learning method for all students in all situations, however. In order for cooperative learning to be

effective, care must be taken to make sure that all students are participating equally in the

cooperative learning process (Kostopoulos, 2010).

5th grade mathematics curriculum in Saudi Arabia

In Saudi Arabia, the mathematics curriculum for fifth grade has the goal of building on an

individual’s existing skills, ability, and math knowledge. The main aim is to develop solid skills

in math, which can yield measurable results in order to refine abilities of solving problems in

future. It is the role of every student to expand their concepts in math in all areas. In order to

achieve this, the participation of the student and their involvement are required in the study

(Jeddah International School, 2015). Topics that the fifth grade math comprises include:

addition, subtraction, division, and multiplication of decimals and whole numbers; place values;

fractions; geometry; graphing; probability; statistics; and measurement. An ideal test in fifth

grade is a test on student growth in areas of number sense, numbers, measurement, and problem

solving. Teachers are provided with information for individualizing instruction, which enables

them analyze progress in the mentioned areas.

Methodology

This study was conducted to investigate the value of using cooperative learning strategies in

math class. Specifically, it sought to answer the question, does using cooperative learning

strategies with Saudi boys ages 10-11increase student participation and positive learning

outcomes in math class?

Participants


18

The research was conducted on two fifth grade classrooms with all male students. Each

class had twelve students; all students were aged between ten to eleven years old. In total, there

was 24 students in both classes. The experimental strategy (cooperative learning) was employed

on the students in one class, and the control (traditional) classroom strategy was employed on

students of the other class. The entire school consisted of 180 students, and most of the students

came to school by bus because they were lower middle class.

Setting

The country KSA is situated in the southwestern part of Asia. The Kingdom of Saudi

Arabia is approximately 2.25 million square kilometers with a population of 27,019,731. The

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia covers 80% of the Arabian Peninsula. The country spreads from the

Red Sea to the Arabian Bay in the east. Saudi Arabia is surrounded by the countries of Jordan,

Kuwait, and Iraq to the North. Yemen and Oman are in the south, and Qatar, UAE, and Bahrain

are situated in the east. The country is divided into thirteen regions, and a governor, who is

elected for a term of four years, governs each region.

The school where I based my research is situated in Sulail City of the Riyadh region. Riyadh

is the capital of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. There are nine elementary schools in Sulail City

having a total of 1,400 students. There are about two hundred teachers in these schools. The

selected school for this study is one of the best schools in the city. All classes are equipped with

an overhead projector, a computer, and a wall mounted 50 inch LED TV. The number of

students in each class averages only fifteen, so the teacher has a close observation of every pupil.

The enrollment of the school is 180 students, who are accommodated in 12 classrooms. There

are two labs for mathematics, two for science practices, and one computer lab. There are three


19

sports grounds for students to play football, cricket, and badminton. Students of this school have

always presented good results in education and sports competition.

Design

The purpose of this study was to increase Saudi student participation and positive

learning outcomes in a fifth grade math class using cooperative learning strategies. I began my

research with a quantitative approach in order to measure the effects of cooperative learning

strategies in math class on student participation and positive learning outcomes. This design was

able to assess the use of cooperative learning strategies that could help students to increase their

participation and that could help their positive learning outcomes in the math class, which may

result in an increase in the student's’ enjoyment in studying mathematics. The research was

conducted, starting on May 15, 2015, and finishing in the end of May.

I used the fifth-grade mathematics textbook (Mathematics, 5th, 2009) to implement this study.

I planned to use specific cooperative learning structures from Cooperative Learning by Kagan

(2009). I chose lessons on the area of rectangles and squares from the textbook. The data

collection approach consisted of a pre-test and post-test. First, I taught the lesson on the area of

rectangle and square for two classes. In the first class, I taught the experimental group using the

cooperative learning approach. In the second class, I taught the control group using a traditional

lecture-type, teacher-centered education. During a regular class, I taught the students in the

experimental group for about ten minutes. Students received the information as listeners without

activity and then the students were advised to do the cooperative learning activity for the next

twenty minutes.


20

First, I needed to level my students from highest to lowest abilities in mathematics. I did

this by listing the students from highest score to lowest score. Now, I had a list of high-level

students, medium level student, and finally low students. Now I was ready to assign seating.

Students were seated in groups of four of mixed ability grouping. I used the Kagan structure

Round Robin, in which the teacher poses a problem to which there are multiple possible

solutions, and provides think time. Students in the group took turns stating solutions. I circulated

around to assist any group that needed help. The last ten minutes of the period was allocated as

discussion time, so that all groups could share their responses and results. In addition, I taught

the students in the control group for about ten minutes, in the traditional format. Students

received the information as listeners without activity. Then the students were given exercises to

complete individually for the next 20 minutes. All students in the control group worked on the

exercises. Each student worked the solutions out individually. Again, I circulated around to assist

any student who needed help. Every student gave me his solution. The students who didn't

answer correctly, I asked to do a second time with corrections. The last ten minutes of the period

was also allocated as discussion time for all students. The focus of the lessons was on finding

the area of rectangles and squares.

Data Collection

To begin the data collection phase of this action research project, the researcher used

classroom map (See Appendices A and B), for recording incidences of student participation

during mathematics lessons. A spreadsheet (See Appendix D) was designed in order to organize

the data recorded during each mathematics lesson. Each student's participation can be analyzed

individually for that lesson.


21

During the last ten minutes of class, I asked questions to students in both groups the

controlled group and experimental group. Students who knew the answers were advised to raise

their hands to answer the question. The number of students who raised their hand was counted

and recorded. To measure the outcome of students from both teaching styles, all students were

tested by the same pre-test and post-test.

Data Analysis

A good research project requires careful preparation to analyze the data collected. The

data analysis used for this quantitative project was basic statistical analysis. The data was

brought into a matrix to facilitate analysis. Given the small size of the groups involved, it was

not necessary to use software specifically designed for such analysis. The data was collected in

Arabic and then was translated into English. The following data analysis was done in order to

answer my question does using cooperative learning strategies with Saudi boys of ages 10-11

increase student participation and positive learning outcomes in math class. The students

completed a pre-test and post-test from their textbook, which had 6 questions with 12 points on

the concept of area. The number of students from both groups who raised their hands in the

discussion portion of the class and the pre-test and the post-test results were compared. This data

was recorded in tables and was presented with the help of charts and graphs for easy comparison

between the two strategies employed on the two different groups. The Analysis of Covariance

test (excel) was the statistical method used in this study. The treatment condition (experimental

versus control) was used as the independent variable, while the posttest scores of participation,

and positive learning outcomes were used as dependent variables.


22

Findings

The purpose of this section is to present the findings of the study, which was designed to

investigate the question, does using cooperative learning strategies with Saudi boys of ages 10-

11 increase student participation and positive learning outcomes in math class? In the following

section, the researcher presents the results of the analysis of the two dependent variables:

participation, and positive learning outcomes.

Participation

One of the criteria for learning success was participation rates. Data were collected on this

criteria through the pre- and post-tests. Participation was shown by the number of times that a

boy raised his hand in class. Two mathematical exercises were used in the study. These were

finding the area of squares and rectangles. The results of the analysis showed that there was an

increase in the student participation on measuring area of square and the rectangle between the

experimental and control groups. The experimental group showed improved participation over

the control group.

Table (1) contains the average count of students’ raised hands for the control and

experimental groups. The results show that on average students raised their hands in the

experimental group (X= 2.583) more often than the control group (X= 2.333). Moreover, on the

rectangle the control group (X=2.416) scored lower than the experimental group (X= 2.8333).


23

Table 1.

Student raised hands incidences

AVERAGE RAISED HANDS RECTAINGLE

AVERAGE RAISED HANDS SQUARE N Group

2.416 2.3 12 Control Group

2.833 2.583 12 Experimental Group

These figures show that there was an increase in the student participation on measuring

area of square and the rectangle by the experimental as compared to the control group.

Moreover, while there were several students who only participated once in the control group

either measuring the area of the square or rectangle, there was only one student in the

experimental group who participated only one. Arguably, it is most important to encourage

reluctant participants to increase their participation. This study shows cooperative learning to be

an effective instructional strategy to accomplish this. (See Appendix F)

The findings of this study indicate that the experimental group percentage (for the

squares exercise) was 53%, which was higher than the control group where the corresponding

percentage was 47%. (See Figure 1.1). Moreover, for the class on rectangles, on the control

group is 46%, which is lower than the experimental group 54%. %. (See Figure 1.2)

Figure 1.1. Percentage of the Control and the Experimental Groups based on student

participation (SQ)


Figure 1.2. Percentage of the Control and the Experimental Groups based on student participation (RC)

Positive Learning Outcomes

The second indication of learning (after the participation method) is the evidence of

positive learning outcomes. Again, there is pre-test and post-test results comparison. Table (2)

contains the average scores of the pretest and posttest of the positive learning outcomes test for

the control and experimental groups.


25

Table (2)

Student average Pretest-Posttest

DIFFERANCE BETWN PRE-POST TEST

AVERAGE POSTTEST

AVERAGE PRETEST N Group

34.03% 77.08% 43.05% 12 Control Group

35.42% 91.67% 56.25% 12 Experimental Group

The results show that on the pretest the experimental group (56.25%) scored higher than the

control group (43.05%). This shows that the original groups were not exactly matched in

mathematical knowledge before the study. However, the experimental group did show a higher

gain through the use of cooperative learning than the control group and indicated a level of

mastery with their average final score. On the posttest the control group had an average score of

77.08%, which was lower than the experimental group’s average score of 91.67%. The results

of this analysis, as indicated by these figures, show that there is a difference in the learning

outcomes between the experimental and control groups with the experimental group showing

improved learning outcomes as compared to the control group.

Discussion

The research completed provides the basis for a discussion of some wider policy

implications. This section continues to give an overview of the limitations of the present

research study, and then finally makes suggestions for further research.

The empirical work was conducted at Alabna Elementary School in Sulail City, Saudi

Arabia. All the testing was done in a two-week period from 15 of May to the end of May 2015.

Tests were administered to an experimental group and a control group. Each group had 12

participants who met every day for two weeks.


26

The control group was taught using traditional teaching methods – which is to say, the

methods were teacher-centered methods. The teacher provided all the information to the students

and there was little attempt to individualize instruction. The students were largely passive. They

were expected to receive information and develop skills on their own. The experimental group

was taught using the cooperative learning methods. Small heterogeneous groups of students

worked together to maximize their own, and each other’s, learning. A pretest and a posttest were

administered to both these groups.

During the two weeks of the study, the teacher found it difficult to alter his teaching style for

the experimental and control groups. He noted that it was easier to teach in the cooperative

learning style, perhaps because this involved the teacher and the students working together as a

team. In the control group the teacher found it was more difficult to teach because all the

activities of the classroom depended upon his actions. Consequently, the pace and the scope of

what occurred in the learning situation depended entirely on the initiatives taken by the teacher.

The process of moving between the two teaching styles demonstrated to the researcher-teacher

that there are some advantages to using the cooperative learning method. Observations were

made of the students in the two groups. In the control group the students interacted very

infrequently. Their interactions did not relate to the work that they were doing rather they may be

deemed as “social interactions.” In the experimental group the students responded more

positively. They appeared to strive in their efforts to complete their work. They were prepared to

help each other in the search for correct answers. In some cases it appeared that they availed

themselves of opportunities to expand their knowledge. Overall, there appeared to be positive

feelings and a warmth within the classroom. In this supportive environment, it was noted that the


27

weaker students improved their performance. It is possible that cooperative learning is a style

well suited to many of the less able students in mathematics classrooms.

In the control group, the students depended on themselves as they worked individually,

and they tried to look for more information as best they could. The teacher in this situation would

assess the students individually. Using the traditional teaching method apparently requires more

time for the students to finish their work. It was observed that the weaker students became

frustrated when they failed to get the correct answer within a reasonable timeframe. This was a

contrast between the experimental and the control groups. Some students intentionally left some

questions without an answer. The teacher needed to wait some time until they finished their work

because they did not participate actively or show enthusiasm. This lack of enthusiasm and active

involvement was taken as indications that the level of motivation was low.

The research indicated that the physical layout of rooms is an issue with innovative styles of

teaching. However, indications are that the physical layout of rooms can be overcome if

everyone understands the benefits. Saudi Arabia is not the first country where teachers have

faced the problem of physical room restrictions. It is not uncommon to find rooms organized so

that the desks are all in a row and the teacher is tied to the front behind a large teacher’s desk. In

some cases the desks are bolted to the floor. There is sometimes a microphone for the teacher.

However, in most cases the desks in a classroom can be moved. For cooperative learning

purposes it is important to place the desks so that small groups of students can face each other.

Sometimes this will be just two students. In other cases it will be groups of three or four or five

or six. It all depends on the number of students in the classroom, the physical equipment

available, and the pedagogy that is to be used. With regard to the education and learning of

mathematics, the layout and physical presence of room equipment or place can play a vital role


28

and help in the understanding of the student. The physical layout of the classroom can effect

instruction either positively or negatively. The positive impact of environment helps in

enhancing the understanding and encouraging the students about studies and about learning. On

the other side the negative impact of environment can distract from the student’s understanding

and discourage students from learning.

Cooperative learning is one form of pedagogy. It has been shown to work well in many

countries and with many different kinds of children. It should work well with Saudi Arabian

students when taught by teachers who understand the theory behind the method. Now the

implications for the classroom have been considered, the wider national policy implications of

this empirical study can be considered.

Implications for Mathematics Teaching in Saudi Arabia

Mathematics teaching is critical to schooling in Saudi Arabia. The discipline of

mathematics is important, not just to the students, but to the country as a whole. The

development of Saudi Arabia requires a competent workforce and in the modern world,

workforce competency entails the skills of mathematics.

As commercial development proceeds and the country modernizes, the need to upgrade

the teaching of mathematics becomes more apparent. It is acknowledged by the Ministry of

education and by teachers and schools that mathematics education has a critical position within

the overall structure of schooling curriculum. As a consequence of this, money is invested into

the pre-service and in-service education of teachers of mathematics.

To understand the situation at the moment, it is helpful to distinguish between curriculum

and pedagogy. Curriculum is what is taught. Pedagogy is how it is taught – the methods of


29

teaching. In Saudi Arabia, The Ministry of Education sets the curriculum for schools throughout

the country but does not have much to say about pedagogy. The curriculum is really just a set of

instructions about what should be taught when. In many countries it is called the syllabus of

instruction or a course prescription.

As mentioned, the National Curriculum for Mathematics in Saudi Arabia is set out

by the Ministry of Education. The Ministry established the “Excellence Center of Science and

Mathematics Education” at King Saud University. This is indicative of the importance the

Ministry attaches to mathematics education. It is intended that the Center provide teaching

resources for all the schools and this will strengthen pedagogy. The resources they intend to

provide include slides, worksheets, tests, and other things, which relate closely to the curriculum

set by the Ministry. It appears that the provision of curriculum materials in this way will

contribute to the maintenance of traditional teaching methods. There has been concern expressed

that through this mechanism the Ministry of Education is becoming involved in pedagogy at a

new level. Whilst it may be desirable that the Ministry becomes involved in pedagogy, if their

involvement is to entrench traditional methods it may not be for the long-term betterment of

mathematics education in Saudi Arabia.

The pedagogy is a significant challenge for the ordinary teacher. It can be hard to

motivate children, not all of who have much interest in mathematics. The national curriculum is

very precise and narrow – students must follow it regardless of their interests or inclinations.

Ideally whilst this does limit the curriculum, it should not place restraints upon pedagogy.

The teaching of mathematics was once mainly by rote learning. This was a particular

expression of traditional teaching methods. Students had to memorize numbers and the


30

relationships between them. There is still teaching like this in Saudi Arabia, but it is considered

by Ministry of Education officials and teachers to be largely ineffective and old-fashioned.

Many students complain they are not taught enough mathematics and science. In a recent

set of standardized global mathematics tests, known as the Trends in International Mathematics

and Science Study (TIMSS), under half of Saudi Arabian 13-year-olds reached the international

benchmark. This can be compared to 99 percent of the students in South Korea and 88 percent in

England (Arab News, 2013). Thus, the report shows dramatic differences between countries. It is

an embarrassment to government officials in Saudi Arabia but there is uncertainty as to how best

to address the situation. It is not just a question of providing more money for mathematics

teacher pre-service and in-service education. It is a question that involves the teachers’ beliefs

about mathematics and about education. A large part of the teachers’ understanding concerning

mathematics relates to what they think about pedagogy. It is proving difficult to develop the

views of teachers about pedagogy when they are entrenched in an existing and functioning

system, and have the challenge of teaching classes of students every day. Some research

indicates that it is desirable to concentrate on the development of the mathematics education

system by concentrating on teacher pre-service education. In other words, it is teacher education,

which needs to be the focus for development. This particularly applies to modern methods of

pedagogy such as cooperative learning.

An important conclusion from the present thesis is that Saudi Arabia ought to replace the

traditional lecture methods with cooperative learning activities. Although this study focuses on

mathematics education it may well be indicative of needs in other school subjects. Nevertheless,

high priority ought to be given to mathematics education because of its aforementioned

importance to national development.


31

We should not underestimate how extensive such an innovation would be. It would involve

considerable up-skilling of teachers. At present most teachers do not know how to put students

into groups, how to give instructions to groups and, most importantly, how to control groups in

the classroom. Teachers would need to learn how to establish cooperative group learning

activities that are suitable for each lesson. One important part of this overall learning for teachers

is the setting of appropriate rules for the student in the cooperative classroom environment.

These rules must be more extensive than has been usual. For example, they must include rules,

which will govern the interaction of students in social situations. The rules would need to

indicate what is allowed as well as what is not allowed. At present, classroom rules have been

largely negative. They have been designed to stop students from doing things, not to facilitate

activities or student interests.

Implications for further research

From the discussion above it should be apparent that Saudi Arabia has many and diverse

needs in mathematics education and in education generally. The country cannot just rely on

curriculum development in the sense of developing prescriptions (lists of topics) for students at

different levels in the system. Saudi Arabia is going to have to tackle questions of pedagogy and

these are primarily addressed through the understanding and inclination of the teaching

workforce. The challenge is to change the beliefs of the teachers regarding pedagogy and to

incentivize them to alter their teaching behavior. To the present it is apparent that the Ministry of

education officials have only considered curriculum in the narrow sense and the provision of

resources to support the existing curriculum.

Research has an important part to play in the changing of attitudes within Saudi Arabia. The

work of researchers can be available to education officials as well as those involved in teacher


32

pre-service and in-service education. The influence of research in these situations is not direct

but rather the building of a culture and a structure of belief. It must be expected that this is an

intergenerational process. It is not going to be possible to lead the teacher workforce into

substantial changes in the short term.

One thing is clear however, it is that relying only on curriculum will not greatly help Saudi

Arabia. We may note that the curriculum to the present has been largely little more than a copy

of similar documents in the United States. While the United States also battles to up skill

teachers and improve pedagogy, these things are not necessarily reflected in the curriculum

documents themselves. The curriculum from the United States, which has been imported into

Saudi Arabia, is dated both in the United States and Saudi Arabia. There are significant cultural

differences between Saudi Arabian students and those in the United States of America. There are

also cultural differences that pertain to the teacher workforce. The advancement of student

centered teaching methods in the United States will be through means that are appropriate to the

culture of the teachers in the United States. We cannot assume that what is learned in the United

States about pedagogy is necessarily going to apply in Saudi Arabia.

This indicates the importance of research that is indigenous work in Saudi Arabia. Saudi

Arabian research, undertaken by Saudi Arabian citizens who are immersed in the culture of

Saudi Arabia, must be significant in the development of pedagogy. We cannot place reliance on

work done in the United Kingdom or the United States, for example, because their cultural

situations are so dramatically different to our situation in Saudi Arabia.

What we need is Saudi Arabian methods of teaching developed by Saudi Arabian teachers.

This can be in accordance with curriculum development as it is being lead by the Ministry of

Education. It must be possible to fit the Cooperative Learning techniques into the system of


33

education in Saudi Arabia. Only then will the teaching profession become professionally

established in Saudi Arabia and only then will the great national problem of educational

underachievement be overcome.

Consequently, the further research, which is indicated by the present study, is not narrowly

confined to mathematics education. There is a wider implication, which entails a wider call for

research. The precise topics of this pedagogical research are less important than the overall goal,

which is to modernize the national education system. Research that focuses on new methods to

develop the skills of student teachers must be important in Saudi Arabia. The first step in doing

this is to develop the methods of teaching within teacher education itself. This requires those

involved in teacher education to experiment with their own pedagogy and to engage students in

their experiments. To a considerable extent it is a “learning by doing” approach, which is needed.

This suggests action research methodologies would be most appropriate.

Apart from initiatives in teacher education mentioned above there is another aspect,

which is of importance in the development of the Saudi Arabian education system. This relates to

the wider context of education and Saudi Arabia. It is going to be difficult to alter pedagogy if

the population in the country has little understanding of what it is that the teacher and the school

are about. The influences on the child are many and diverse. It is, however, apparent that the

home and community influences are significant (if not greater than those of the school).

Consequently we must consider the role of parents and community members in relation to

elementary school education. There are important roles for educational researchers in this field.

The elementary school teacher must follow the national curriculum with modern methods

in education. The move to cooperative learning and management practices in the classroom must

be in accordance with the national curriculum. One important step towards new pedagogy is the


34

communication of new ideas to the parents. It is possible to explain to the parents what is

intended in the new arrangement of the classroom and the grouping of the children. If the parents

come to see that the teachers have good ideas and are dedicated to the learning of their children,

they will support change in the education system as a whole. In undertaking such work it is

important that it is done in a systematic and professional manner. This involves the evaluation of

initiatives, and the enhancement of informed decision-making by both education officials and

teachers. Educational research is an important part of the development process in this way. The

work with parents and the community will need to be evaluated and new policy built upon those

evaluations.

The most important relationship facilitating the learning of the students is actually that

between the school teachers and the parents. Overseas research indicates that when parents work

with the school to enhance students learning they reinforce each other. We need research in

Saudi Arabia to consider this aspect of education. At present there is much work to be done to

involve parents in the schooling process. Where the parents are involved in schooling process it

tends to work towards the entrenchment of traditional methods of education. Enlightened, or at

least a new, pedagogy is not even considered. There is a role for researchers here. Research

could show the parents the advantages for their children of new methods of pedagogy. This

includes the advantages of cooperative learning as they were identified in the present research.

What are the specific studies, which might now be undertaken in accordance with the

discussion above? First, there are replications of the present study. The enquiry has used a

straightforward research method and made a comparison of two groups. The work can be

extended in many ways. For example, different grade levels within the teaching of mathematics

and Saudi Arabia could be considered. Alternatively, cooperative learning and traditional


35

methods could be compared in subjects other than mathematics. The principles of cooperative

learning are general and can be applied in many school subjects. In the teaching of science they

relate well to inquiry methods. In subjects like geography there is also good scope for the

students to work in groups cooperatively. Again, an evaluation of different teaching techniques

would be valuable.

Second, the present work on mathematics education could lead to more work within that

field. For example, it would be possible to analyze the nature of the interactions between the

students. Such work might show what kinds of guidance and rules would be appropriate for the

enhancement of learning. Third, it would be possible to involve parents and other community

members in the teaching of mathematics in cooperative classrooms. Adults could be brought into

the classroom initially with observer status. Their role would be to observe how their children are

being taught and to discuss that in the wider community. Subsequently, the adults could begin to

have a larger role within the classroom. They could even participate in the cooperative learning

groups. They would need to understand the nature of these groups and what it is that they are

trying to achieve. There would always be the danger that the adult would begin to impose

traditional teaching methods. They would be inclined to use the methods by which they were

taught. However it would be possible with appropriate training, and given an appropriate amount

of time, to bring adults to a new understanding of the processes in cooperative classrooms. Thus

the research could facilitate a change in attitudes and a deepening of understanding within the

wider society. An evaluation of such a study could be an important contribution to the

development of education in Saudi Arabia.

Fourth, there are many studies, which could be conducted which altered the variables that

relate to the teaching method. For example, a study could be done with class and group sizes.


36

Does it make any difference to the learning of students if they are in a group of three or a group

of seven? Dependent variables also relate to the room facilities and the experience of the

teachers. In all cases such studies would have as their independent variables the extent of the

learning of students.

Limitations

Researchers have found that cooperative learning enhances cognitive processes

among individuals. Individuals in fifth grade are at an emotional and social stage and can quickly

learn new things from others as well as teaching others. Collaborative learning enables

individuals to organize information in their minds and form mental structures that support their

basis of solving problems. In a group, members can use each other’s background information and

build on it to gain understanding of concepts. Collaborative learning is a method that has been

used for a long time and has a solid research base that supports it. In Saudi Arabia the education

curriculum at fifth grade in math class has a goal of developing solid skills in math, which can

yield measurable results in order to refine abilities of solving problems in future.

This research work is limited for the subject of mathematics, and specifically for fifth

grade Saudi boys in a particular school. The results of this study may not be applicable for fifth

grade Saudi girls. Only two classes, each having 12 students participated in this study. This may

result in an imprecise conclusion. In addition, while assigning students to groups, the previous

education history of a student was not taken into account. It may be that the two groups are not

equal academically. In addition, the treatment in this study occurred over just two weeks, which

may not be enough time for students to practice using cooperative learning. Therefore, it may be

hard to shift students from traditional instruction to cooperative learning instruction in such a

short time.


37

Cooperative learning is an excellent way to improve the productivity of a classroom and

to create a friendly environment in class. Students who participate in cooperative learning learn

considerably more, remember it for a long time, and have improved critical-thinking skills over

their peers who are in more traditional classrooms. Research into the general efficiency of

cooperative learning methods as well as the results from this study suggest that cooperative

learning is superior to traditional learning in terms of academic achievement. There are,

however, considerable challenges both within the classroom and in the policy arena of the

Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia. The role of research in the advancement of issues here

has been described. The conclusion is that there is much that can be done to advance

mathematics education as well as the wider education system. Cooperative learning may be the

vehicle, which takes Saudi Arabia education forward into a brighter future.


38

References

Acar, B., & Tarhan, L. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning on students' understanding of

metallic bonding. Research In Science Education, 38(4), 401-420.

Alexander, B., Lindlow, L., & Schock, M. (2008). Measuring the impact of cooperative learning

exercises on student perceptions of peer-to-peer learning: A case study. The Journal of

Physician Assistant Education. 19:3, p. 18-25.

Alhaidari, M. (2006). The effectiveness of using cooperative learning to promote

reading comprehension, vocabulary, and fluency achievement scores of male fourth-and

fifth-grade students in Saudi Arabian school (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania

State University, 2006)

Arab News (2013). Website of Arab News in Saudi Arabia. Retrieved from

http://www.jischool.org/curriculum-overview/grades-1-5.html

Artut, P. D. (2009). Experimental evaluation of the effects of cooperative learning on

kindergarten children's mathematics ability. International journal of educational

research, 48(6), 370-380.

Bolukbas, F., Keskin, F., & Polat, M. (2011). The effectiveness of cooperative learning on the

reading comprehension skills in Turkish as a foreign language. Turkish Online Journal

of Educational Technology-TOJET, 10(4), 330-335.

Celikten, O., Ipekcioglu, S., Ertepinar, H., & Geban, O. (2012). The effect of the conceptual

change oriented instruction through cooperative learning on 4th grade students'

understanding of earth and sky concepts. Science Education International, 23(1), 84-96.

Czekanski, K. E., & Wolf, Z. R. (2013). Encouraging and evaluating class participation. Journal

Of University Teaching and Learning Practice, 10(1), 1-12.


39

Drakeford, W. (2012). The effects of cooperative learning on the classroom participation of

students placed at risk for societal failure. Psychology Research, 2(4), 239-246.

Ebrahim, Ali. (2010). The effect of cooperative learning strategies on elementary students’

science achievement and social skills in Kuwait. International Journal of Science and

Mathematics Education, 10, 293-314.

Eccles, J. S. (1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. The future of children, 9(2) 30-

40.

Galton, M., Hargreaves, L., & Pell, T. (2009). Group work and whole-class teaching with 11- to

14-year-olds compared. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39(1), 119-140.

doi:10.1080/03057640802701994

Gottler, R. M. (2010). Passive or passionate participation in mathematics: Diagnosing and

improving student participation in mathematics. Online submission. Retrieved from

ERIC Database. (ED511318).

Hooker, D. (2011). Small peer-led collaborative learning groups in developmental math classes

at a tribal community college. Multicultural Perspectives, 13(4), 220-226.

Jeddah International School (2015). Website of Jeddah International School in Saudi Arabia.

Retrieved from http://www.jischool.org/curriculum-overview/grades-1-5.html

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college:

What evidence is there that it works? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 30(4),

26-35.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Making Cooperative Learning Work. Theory into

Practice, Vol. 38, No.2. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates (Taylor & Francis Group).


40

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Social interdependence and motor performance: A

meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 125 :133–154

http://www.sfu.ca/~jcnesbit/EDUC220/ThinkPaper/Johnson2003.pdf

Jones, K. A., & Jones, J. L. (2008). Making cooperative learning work in the college classroom:

An application of the ‘Five Pillars’ of cooperative learning to post-secondary

instruction. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 8(2), 61-76.

Kagan, S. (1989). The structural approach to cooperative learning. Educational leadership, 47(4),

12-15. http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/pdf/journals/ed_lead/el_198912_kagan.pdf

Kagan, S. (1995). Group grades miss the mark. Educational Leadership, 52(8), 68-71.

Ke, F., & Grabowski, B. (2007). Game playing with math’s learning: Cooperative or not? British

Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 249-259

Kotsopoulos, D. (2010). When collaborative is not collaborative: Supporting student learning

through self-surveillance. International Journal of Educational Research, 49, 129-140.

Law, Y. (2011). The effects of cooperative learning on enhancing Hong Kong fifth graders'

achievement goals, autonomous motivation and reading proficiency. Journal Of Research

In Reading, 34(4), 402-425.

Mevarech, Z. R. (1985). The effects of cooperative mastery learning strategies on mathematics

achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 78(6), 372-377.


41

Maher, L. (2010). Strategies to increase participation in cooperative learning groups.

(Unpublished master’s thesis) Marygrove College, Detroit, MI. Retrieved from ERIC

Database. (ED512114).

Patchen, Terri. (2005). Prioritizing participation: Five things that every teacher needs to know to

prepare recent immigrant adolescents for classroom participation. Multicultural

Education, 12(4), 43-47.

Roberts, A., & Friedman, D. (2013). The impact of teacher immediacy on student participation:

An objective cross-disciplinary examination. International Journal of Teaching and

Learning in Higher Education, 25(1), 38-46.

Salako, E. C., Eze, I. R., &Adu, E. O. (2013). Effects of cooperative learning on junior

secondary school students' knowledge and attitudes to multicultural education concepts in

social studies. Education, 133(3), 303-309.

http://discovery.org.in/PDF_Files/ds_20121004.pdf

Slavin, R. E. (1984). Students motivating students to excel: Cooperative incentives, cooperative

tasks, and student achievement. The Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 53-63.

Souvignier, E., & Kronenberger, J. (2007). Cooperative learning in third graders' jigsaw

groups for mathematics and science with and without questioning training. British

Journal Of Educational Psychology, 77(4), 755-771.


42

Appendices


43

Appendix A: Math classroom tally chart to track participation (Control Group)

Student 10 Student 11 Student 12




Map Key

I


44

Appendix B: Math classroom tally chart to track participation (Experimental Group)

Student 7 Student 8 Student 11 Student 12

Student 5 Student 6 Student 9 Student 10

Student 3 Student 4

Student1 student2

Map Key

I


45

Appendix C: Textbook


46

Appendix C: Textbook


47

Appendix D: A spreadsheet

5th Grade Mathematics Participation

Date : Total Students Present:

Student Raised Hand

Student A

Student B

Student C

Student D

Student E Student F

Student G

Student H

Student I

Student J

Student K

Student L

Student M CLASSROOM TOTALS


48

Appendix E: Pre/ post test

Find the area of rectangles and squares

21cm 84cm

42cm

84cm

Area = Area =

87cm 49cm

41cm

Area = 68cm

99cm Area =

99cm 39cm

Area = 85cm


49

Appendix F: Classrome tests results

stud

ent

Cont group

pre-‐

test

Coop group pre-‐ test

Cont partis square

coop partis square

cont partis rect

Coop partis rect

Cont group post-‐test

coop group post-‐test

Cont group deff

coop group

Pre-‐post deff

pre-‐post

1 11 10 3 3 3 3 12 12 1 2

2 2 8 1 3 2 3 6 12 4 8

3 11 3 3 2 3 2 12 8 1 5

4 6 6 2 3 1 3 6 12 0 6

5 4 7 3 2 3 3 12 11 7 4

6 5 6 3 3 1 3 9 12 4 6

7 2 2 3 1 3 2 6 6 4 4

8 9 9 3 3 3 3 12 12 3 3

9 2 11 2 3 2 3 8 12 6 1

10 1 6 3 3 3 3 12 12 11 6

11 6 7 1 3 3 3 9 12 3 5

12 3 6 1 2 2 3 7 11 4 5

Total n= 12

5٫166666667

6٫75 2٫33333

3333 2٫5833333

33 2٫416666667

2٫833333333

9٫25 11 4 4٫583333333

running head: cooperative learning strategies using ... · cooperative learning...

Documents