THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING (TEAM-

ACCELERATED INSTRUCTION) IN TEACHING PROBABILITY

HII YUNG ING

This project is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Bachelor of Education (Mathematics) with Honours

Faculty of Cognitive Sciences and Human Development

UNIVERSITY MALAYSIA SARAWAK

2008

The project entitled “The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning (Team-

Accelerated Instruction) in Teaching Probability” was prepared by Hii Yung Ing

and submitted to the Faculty of Cognitive Sciences and Human Development in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for a Bachelor of Education (Mathematics)

with Honours.

Received for examination by:

------------------------------------

(Associate Professor Dr. Hong Kian Sam)

Date:

---------------------------------

Grade

i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success of the research rests on the efforts and cooperation of many parties.

Hence, I would like to take this opportunity to express my greatest appreciation and

gratitude to them for their continuous comments, supports, suggestions and the

committed advices.

Special thanks to my project supervisor, Associate Professor Dr. Hong Kian Sam, for

his invaluable assistances, suggestions, advices, ideas, and understanding while the

study was carried.

I would also like to thanks all the Form Four students in SMK Agama Sibu for their

cooperation during the data collection processes.

I would also like to extend my appreciation to my beloved parents for their financial

support and encouragement throughout my study at University Malaysia Sarawak.

Lastly, a big thank you to all my coursemates and friends who contributed to the

success of this study.

ii

ABSTRACT

THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING (TEAM-

ACCELERATED INSTRUCTION) IN TEACHING PROBABILITY

This study investigated the effectiveness of cooperative learning (Team-Accelerated

Instruction) in teaching the topic of “Probability” for Form 4 students. This research

was a quantitative research using a quasi-experimental research design. Specifically,

it was a pretest and posttest control group quasi-experimental research design. The

study was carried out within two weeks involving two intact classes. A class was

chosen as a control group (traditional method) while another class was the

experimental group (cooperative learning method). The population of this research

involved all the Form Four students from SMK Agama Sibu with 502 students. The

sample was from 4C and 4B classes. The students in these two classes were of

different races, genders and abilities. A total of 42 students participated in this study

with 20 students in 4C class and 22 students in 4B class. The 4B class had four male

students and 18 female students while 4C class consisted of five male students and 15

female students. The 4C class was randomly assigned as the experimental group

while the 4B class was the control group. The research instruments used in this study

were a pretest and a posttest that measured the students’ achievements in the topic of

“Probability” and a questionnaire to measure the students’ interests and efficacy in

mathematics as well as the perceptions towards the use of cooperative learning. The

data collected were analyzed using two-way ANOVAs, independent t-tests, means,

and frequencies. It was found that there was a significance difference in students’

achievements in the topic “Probability” for those taught using cooperative learning

and traditional method (F=10.455, p<0.005). There was no gender difference in the

achievements for the topic of “Probability”. There was also no interaction effect

between teaching methods (cooperative learning method and traditional method) and

gender on achievement (F=0.083, p=0.775). There was a significance difference in

iii

the students’ interests in mathematics with those using the TAI method having higher

level of interest (t=14.049, p<0.005) compared to the traditional method. For self-

efficacy, there was also a significance difference in students’ efficacy based on the

types of teaching method (cooperative learning method and traditional method) used

with t=9.079 and p<0.005. The TAI group had higher level of efficacy compared to

the traditional method. Students also preferred the TAI teaching method compared to

the traditional instruction (t=10.678, p<0.005). It is recommended that future research

should use a bigger sample and involve more students from different academic levels.

Future research should also include samples from rural and urban area. In addition,

more topics in the mathematics syllabus should be included and duration in

instruction be increased in the future research. Teachers should also be encouraged to

use cooperative learning, including TAI, to create more student-centered learning

environments for the students.

iv

ABSTRAK

KEBERKESANAN KAEDAH PEMBELAJARAN KOPERATIF (TAI)

DALAM PENGAJARAN KEBARANGKALIAN

Kajian ini bertujuan untuk meninjau keberkesanan keadah pembelajaran koperatif

(TAI) dalam pengajaran topik “Kebarangkalian” bagi pelajar Tingkatan Empat.

Pendekatan kuantitatif dengan rekabentuk kajian kuasi eksperimen digunakan. Secara

khususnya, kajian ini berbentuk kuasi eksperimen dengan menggunakan ujian pra dan

pasca dengan kumpulan kawalan. Tempoh kajian adalah selama dua minggu yang

melibatkan dua buah kelas sedia ada. Sebuah kelas telah dipilih sebagai kumpulan

kawalan (kaedah tradisional) manakala sebuah kelas lagi dipilih sebagai kumpulan

eskperimen (kaedah pembelajaran koperatif). Populasi bagi kajian ini terdiri daripada

semua pelajar Tingkatan Empat sekolah SMK Agama Sibu dengan jumlah pelajarnya

seramai 502 orang. Sampel kajian ini ialah kelas 4B and 4C. Pelajar dalam kedua-dua

kelas terdiri daripada pelbagai bangsa, jantina dan keupayaan. Sebanyak 42 orang

pelajar terlibat dalam kajian ini dengan 20 orang pelajar di kelas 4C dan 22 orang

pelajar di kelas 4B. Kelas 4B terdiri daripada empat orang lelaki dan 18orang pelajar

perempuan manakala kelas 4C mempunyai lima orang pelajar lelaki dan 15 orang

pelajar perempuan. Kelas 4C telah dipilih secara rawak sebagai kumpulan eskperimen

manakala kelas 4B dipilih sebagai kumpulan kawalan. Ujian pra dan pasca telah

digunakan sebagai instrumen untuk menilai pencapaian pelajar dalam topik

“Kebarangkalian” dan soal selidik pula untuk menilai minat dan efikasi pelajar

terhadap matematik serta persepsi terhadap penggunaan kaedah pembelajaran

koperatif. Data yang dikumpul telah dianalisis dengan menggunakan ANOVA dua-

hala, ujian t-tidak bersandar, min, dan frekuensi. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan

terdapat perbezaan yang signifikan bagi pencapaian pelajar dalam topik

“Kebarangkalian” selepas menggunakan kaedah pembelajaran koperatif dan kaedah

tradisional (F=10.455, p<0.005). Tiada perbezaan jantina dalam pencapaian topik

v

“Kebarangkalian”. Tidak terdapat kesan interaksi antara kaedah pengajaran (keadah

pembelajaran koperatif dan keadah tradisional) dengan jantina (F=0.083, p=0.775).

Terdapat perbezaan yang signifikan bagi minat pelajar terhadap matematik dengan

kumpulan TAI mempunyai tahap minat yang lebih tinggi (t=14.049, p<0.005)

berbanding dengan kumpulan kaedah tradisional. Bagi efikasi pula, terdapat juga

perbezaan yang signifikan berdasarkan jenis kaedah pembelajaran (pembelajaran

koperatif dan tradisional) yang digunakan dengan t=9.079 dan p<0.005. Kumpulan

yang menggunakan TAI mempunyai tahap efikasi yang lebih tinggi berbanding

dengan kaedah tradisional. Pelajar juga lebih gemar dengan penggunaan kaedah TAI

berbanding dengan kaedah tradisional. Cadangan untuk kajian masa depan adalah

menggunakan bilangan sampel yang lebih banyak dan melibatkan lebih ramai pelajar

daripada tahap akademik yang berbeza-beza. Kajian masa depan juga harus

melibatkan sampel dari kawasan luar bandar dan bandar. Tambahan lagi, bagi kajian

masa depan, perlu melibatkan lebih banyak topik dalam sukatan pelajaran matematik

dan masa pengajaran harus dipanjangkan. Guru juga perlu digalakkan untuk

menggunakan kaedah pembelajaran koperatif, termasuk TAI, untuk menghasilkan

suasana pembelajaran berpusatkan pelajar.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i

ABSTRACT ii

ABSTRAK iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS vi

LIST OF TABLES ix

LIST OF FIGURES xi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Background of Study 1

1.2 Problem Statement 4

1.3 Research Objectives 6

1.3.1 General Objective 6

1.3.2 Specific Objectives 6

1.4 Research Questions 7

1.5 Research Hypotheses 8

1.6 Research Framework 9

1.7 Significance of the Study 10

1.8 Limitations of the Study 10

1.9 Definition of Terms 10

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction 13

2.1 Cooperative Learning 13

2.2 Characteristics of Cooperative Learning 15

2.3 Teachers’ Roles in Cooperative Learning 17

2.4 Types of Cooperative Learning 19

vii

2.4.1 Team-Accelerated Instruction (TAI) 19

2.4.2 Student Team-Achievement Division (STAD) 20

2.4.3 Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT) 20

2.4.4 Jigsaw 21

2.5 Empirical Studies of Cooperative Learning 22

2.5.1 Non-Mathematics Subjects 22

2.5.2 Science Subjects 29

2.5.3 Mathematics 29

2.5.3.1 Cooperative Learning 31

2.5.3.2 Team-Accelerated Instruction (TAI) 35

2.6 Conclusion 37

CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHOD

3.0 Introduction 40

3.1 Research Design 40

3.2 Participants 40

3.3 Research Instruments 41

3.3.1 Pretest and Posttest 41

3.3.2 Questionnaire 44

3.4 Procedures in Cooperative Learning 44

3.5 Procedures in Data Collection 45

3.6 Data Analysis 45

3.7 Summary 47

CHAPTER 4 FINDINGS

4.0 Introduction 48

4.1 Students’ Demographics 48

4.2 Reliability Analysis 50

4.3 Findings Based on Research Objectives 51

viii

4.3.1 Effects of Teaching Method and 52

Gender on Students’ Achievements

in the topic of “Probability”

a. To investigate differences in students’ 52

achievements in the topic of “Probability”

between students taught using

cooperative learning and those taught

with traditional method.

b. To determine gender differences 52

in achievement for the topic of “Probability”.

c. To determine whether there was an 52

interaction effect between teaching methods

(cooperative learning and traditional method)

and gender on mathematics achievements.

4.3.2 Students’ Interests in Mathematics 54

4.3.3 Students’ Perceptions of the Teaching method Used 62

4.3.4 Students’ Efficacy in Mathematics 72

4.4 Summary 80

CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

5.0 Introduction 81

5.1 Summary of the Research 81

5.2 Summary of the Findings 83

5.3 Discussion of the Findings 83

5.4 Implications of the Study 86

5.5 Suggestions of the Study 87

5.6 Conclusions 88

REFERENCES 89

ix

APPENDICES

Appendix A 101

Appendix B 104

Appendix C 107

Appendix D 115

Appendix E 122

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1

Types of objective questions for pretest and posttest 42

Table 3.2

Types of subjective questions for pretest and posttest 42

Table 3.3

Test specification table for pretest and posttest 43

Table 3.4

Data analysis 46

Table 4.1

Students’ demographics 49

Table 4.2

Reliability analysis of questionnaire 50

Table 4.3

Reliability analysis of pretest 51

Table 4.4

Reliability analysis of posttest 51

Table 4.5

Results of two-way ANOVA for interaction effect 53

Table 4.6

Descriptive statistics for groups and gender 53

Table 4.7

Frequencies for students’ interests in mathematics 57

Table 4.8

Descriptive statistics for students’ interests in mathematics 61

Table 4.9

Results of independent t-test for students’ interests in mathematics 62

xi

Table 4.10

Frequencies for students’ perceptions of the teaching method used 66

Table 4.11

Descriptive statistics for students’ perceptions 70

of the teaching method used

Table 4.12

Results of independent t-test for students’ perceptions 72

of the teaching method used

Table 4.13

Frequencies for students’ efficacy in mathematics 75

Table 4.14

Descriptive statistics for students’ efficacy in mathematics 79

Table 4.15

Results of independent t-test for students’ efficacy in mathematics 80

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1

Research framework 9

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction

This chapter provides the introduction to the study conducted to investigate the

effectiveness of cooperative learning (Team-Accelerated Instruction) in teaching

Form 4 students in the topic of “Probability”. It is divided into eight parts. The

first and second parts are about the background of the study and problem

statement. The third part discusses the research objectives of the study which

consisted of the general objective and specific objectives. The fourth part outlines

the research questions. The fifth part states the research hypotheses. The sixth part

presents the research framework of the study detailing the dependent and

independent variables. The seventh and eighth parts of this chapter discuss the

significance and limitations of the study. The last part provides the definition of

relevant terms in the study.

1.1 Background of Study

In the present era dominated by mathematics, science, and technology, it is

essential for mathematics and science teachers to equip themselves with the

knowledge and skills required to teach both mathematics and science

meaningfully to the students. The quality of education that teachers provide to the

2

students is highly dependent upon what teachers do in the classroom (Furner &

Kumar, 2007). In promoting good practice of mathematics and sciences teaching,

the teachers need to innovate their teaching and learning processes to meet the

students’ academic needs through the use of various teaching strategies, teaching

materials, and evaluation techniques (Marsigit, 2007). Thus, in preparing the

students of today to become successful individuals of tomorrow, science and

mathematics teachers need to ensure that their teaching is effective and

meaningful (Furner & Kumar, 2007).

Traditional teaching and cooperative learning strategies have been studied for

many years (Messier, 2003, cited in Messier, 2005). Traditional teaching is a

teacher-centered approach which places emphasis on the teacher and deep

learning through memorization. It is characterized by directed demonstrations and

activities to verify previously introduced concepts (Effandi Zakaria & Zanaton

Iksan, 2007). In the education context, teacher is the sender or the source, his or

her educational material is the information or message, and the student is the

receiver of the information (Tse & Mai, 2004). Teachers are the bosses, leaders,

creators, while students are the employees, followers, and users (Panitz, 1999).

The most common type of delivery medium in the traditional instruction is via the

“chalk-and talk” method by the teacher (Tse & Mai, 2004).

Traditional methods of teaching have come under increasing attack for decades

(Morgan, 1999). Critics of direct instruction believed that traditional mathematics

instruction often teaches students on unintended lesson – that they cannot

“understand mathematics” (Woolfolk, 2004, p. 462). Others asserted that the

traditional “stand and deliver” style of teaching no longer does the job, that it fails

to develop students’ critical thinking and problem-solving skills, and that it

suppresses natural creativity and curiosity (Morgan, 1999).

Many recent studies demonstrated that cooperative learning provides a variety of

educational advantages over more traditional instructional models (Haller,

3

Gallagher, Weldon, & Felder, 2000). Hence, over the past decade, cooperative

learning has emerged as the leading new approach to classroom instruction (Stahl,

1994). Cooperative learning has been recommended as effective for most school

subjects across various groups of students measured on several cognitive and

affective outcomes (Robinson, 1991). It provides the setting, context, and

environment in which assessment becomes parts of the instructional process and

students learn as much from assessing the qualities of their own and their

classmates’ works as they do from participating in the instructional activities

(Johnson & Johnson, 1999a). Effective cooperative teaching strategies are

somewhat different from traditional teaching strategies because they require

increasing accountability between individuals (Messier, 2005). Students work

together to accomplish shared goals and are not finished with the works until all

members of the group have acquired the learning objectives (Kim, Cohen,

Booske, & Derry, 1998). The success of one student depends upon group efforts

and also enables other group members to be successful (Saunders & Batson,

1999).

Today there is an added emphasis on improving goals and outcomes in education

(Messier, 2005). Students not only need knowledge but also communication skills

and creative and critical thinking skills in the years ahead (Effandi Zakaria &

Zanaton Iksan, 2007). The Ministry of Education (2003) states that in

mathematics, the curriculum provides students with the mathematical knowledge

and skills and develops problem solving and decision making skills for everyday

use. Thus, effective mathematics instruction should involve active students’

participation (Panitz, 2000). Hedeen (2003) stated that students learn best when

they are actively involved in the learning process.

Hence, the mathematics teachers are expected to teach mathematics in a way that

enables the students not only to learn the mathematical concepts but also acquire

the process skills as well as the problem solving skills. It is the responsibilities of

teachers to be aware of the various learning preferences that students bring to the

4

classroom and try to take full advantages of them during the daily teaching and

learning processes (Vaughan, 2002). Therefore, it is hoped that through

cooperative learning, students’ learning can be deepened, enjoy attending class,

and will come to respect and value the contributions of their fellow classmates

(Millis, 2002). Thus, in teaching mathematics, efforts should be taken to move the

teaching of mathematics lessons from a traditional approach to more students-

centered approaches.

1.2 Problem Statement

Mullis ( 2004, cited in Effandi Zakaria & Zanaton Iksan, 2007, p.36 ) stated that

In mathematics, 64% of teachers reported that they use textbook

as primary basis of their lessons. The three most predominant

activities in mathematics classroom were teacher lectures,

teacher-guided students practices and students working on

problems on their own, accounting for 58% of class time. Other

activities were reviewing homework, re-teaching and clarifying

content, taking tests and quizzes and participating in classroom

management tasks that are not related to the lesson content.

In Malaysia, the issue of shortcomings in science and mathematics education has

been hotly debated. Effandi Zakaria and Zanaton Iksan (2007) have identified

pedagogical limitations as one of the major shortcomings in our secondary

education. One of them is teacher-centered instruction. In a teacher-centered

instruction, students become passive recipients of knowledge and resort to rote

learning. The “what” and “how” of learning are preplanned by the teacher (Panitz,

1999). Students seldom ask questions or exchange thoughts with each other in the

class. Hence, in a traditional classroom, teacher directs the learning process,

guiding the students through the various stages of a task by questioning and

5

evaluating contributions at every stage in the process (Gumperaz, Cook-

Gumperaz, & Szymanski, 1999).

In mathematics lessons, the use of traditional method has been criticized as it is

said that this instruction is not for conceptual understanding but rather for

memorizing and recalling of facts. It is predominately teacher-directed and the

students work alone on the assigned task (Hoxworth, 1999). Students in a

traditional teacher-centered education lack conceptual understanding and are

unable to perform successfully in a task that requires deep understanding of

concepts. In cooperative learning method on the other hand, students are free to

take their own time to work out their learning strategies and rely on peer group

processes, both to establish collaboration and to guide their own learning

(Gumperaz et al., 1999). Kim et al. (1998) stated that cooperative learning is an

effective way to help students recall appropriate schemas, because one can

provide cues to others unless all students in a group do not have appropriate

schemas.

Townsend and Wilton (2003) suggested that with certain instructional strategies,

adults may be able to increase their perceptions of personal ability to learn and

perform tasks in mathematics, and to reduce their feelings of tension associated

with these tasks. Hence, cooperative learning is a shift in educational paradigm

from a teacher-centered approach to a student-centered approach. Cooperative

learning has been found to be a successful teaching strategy at all levels, from pre-

school to post secondary (Dotson, 2001). It allows students to explore and

discover mathematical concepts, while at the same time it offers instructors an

avenue to introduce it in a variety of ways (Kasturiarachi, 2004). The revised

curriculum of the primary and secondary schools emphasized the use of

cooperative learning as an alternative to traditional method of teaching

(Kementerian Pendidikan Malaysia, 2001, cited in Effandi Zakaria & Zanaton

Iksan, 2007). Small-group learning, in which students discuss ideas and solve

6

problems, is consistently described as one strategy to meet the challenge of reform

in mathematics education (Whicker, Bol, & Nunnery, 1997).

Cooperative learning prepares students for today's society (Blosser, 1992). Its

activities promote the development of interpersonal skills and communication

skills through face-to-face interactions (Towns, 1998). It allows students to create

an environment where they actively engage in the material by sharing insights and

ideas, providing feedback, and teaching each other (Towns, 1998). Teachers’

skills are frequently implicated in quality of instruction and use of effective

approaches (Lopata, Miller, & Miller, 2003). Hence, teachers are encouraged to

introduce active-learning activities where students are able to construct knowledge

(Garfield, 1993). The role of the instructor should change from a deliverer-of-

information to a facilitator of learning (Millis, 2002).

Thus, it is not surprising that recent calls have been made for greater use of

cooperative learning in mathematics education (Blum-Anderson, 1992). In

addition, Clark (2000) stated that Team-Accelerated Instruction (TAI), a

cooperative learning strategy could be appropriate for use in heterogeneous

mathematics classes. Thus, this research aimed to investigate the effectiveness of

cooperative learning (TAI) in teaching Form 4 students on the topic of

“Probability”. It was also to determine the students’ achievements, interests,

perceptions, and efficacy towards the use of this teaching method.

1.3 Research Objectives

1.3.1 General Objective

The objective of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of cooperative

learning in teaching the topic of “Probability” for Form 4 students.

7

1.3.2 Specific Objectives

Specifically the study looked at the following research objectives:

1. a. To investigate differences in students’ achievements in the topic of

“Probability” between students taught using cooperative learning and

those taught with traditional method.

b. To determine gender differences in achievement for the topic of

“Probability”.

c. To determine whether there was an interaction effect between teaching

methods (cooperative learning and traditional method) and gender on

mathematics achievements.

2. To determine differences in students’ interests in the subject for the two

teaching methods.

3. To investigate differences in students’ perceptions on the teaching method

(cooperative learning and traditional method) used for teaching the topic

of “Probability”.

4. To determine students’ efficacy in the subject for the two teaching

methods.

1.4 Research Questions

1. a. Were there any differences in students’ achievements in the topic of

“Probability” between students taught using cooperative learning and

those taught with traditional method?

8

b. Were there any gender differences in achievement for the topic of

“Probability”?

c. Was there any interaction effect between teaching methods

(cooperative learning and traditional method) and gender on

mathematics achievements?

2. Were there any differences in students’ interests in the subject for the two

teaching methods?

3. Were there any differences in students’ perceptions on the teaching

method (cooperative learning and traditional method) used for teaching the

topic of “Probability”?

4. Were there any differences in students’ efficacy in subject for the two

teaching methods?

1.5 Research Hypotheses

The null hypotheses for this study were:

H01a: There were no significance differences in students’ achievements in the

topic of “Probability” for students taught using cooperative learning and

those taught with the traditional method.

H01b: There were no gender differences in the achievement for the topic of

“Probability”.

9

H01c: There was no interaction effect between teaching methods (cooperative

learning and traditional method) and gender on mathematics

achievements.

H02: There were no significance differences in students’ interests in the subject

for those taught using cooperative learning and traditional teaching

method.

H03: There were no significance differences in students’ perceptions on the two

teaching methods.

H04: There were no significance differences in students’ efficacy in the subject

for those taught using cooperative learning and traditional teaching.

1.6 Research Framework

Figure 1.1 shows the research framework of the study.

Figure 1.1 Research framework

Independent Variable

1. Teaching method

a) Cooperative

learning

b) Traditional method

2. Gender

Dependent Variable

1. Achievement in the

topic “Probability”

2. Interest in the subject.

3. Perceptions on the

teaching method.

4. Efficacy in the

subject.

10

1.7 Significance of the Study

The findings of this study could be a source to motivate school mathematics

teachers to use Team Accelerated Instruction (TAI) and cooperative learning as

one of their teaching strategies in the mathematics classroom. It is hoped that this

study could encourage the mathematics teacher to shift their way of teaching from

a teacher-centered approach to more students-centered approaches.

1.8 Limitations of the Study

The study has some limitations. For instance, this study was carried out in only

one secondary school in Sibu. The participants were 42 Form 4 students from the

population of all Form 4 students in SMK Agama Sibu. Thus, the sample

represented only a small portion of the population. The 42 students were from two

intact classes chosen from three Form 4 classes. In addition, the results obtained

might not be representative of students of other levels of students such as lower

secondary students and Form 6 students. Furthermore, the study was conducted

only in a short time frame of two weeks or 10 periods of mathematics lessons.

1.9 Definition of Terms

Below are the operational definition of some of the important terms that used in

the study.

Effectiveness/Achievement

In this study, the term “effectiveness/achievement” referred to the students’ scores

in the pretest and posttest for the topic of “Probability”.