Topic: The effects of cooperative learning groups versus individual work on spelling test achievement

in the 2nd and 3rd grade.

By: Norma RosaBy: Norma RosaHoward UniversityHoward University

Fall 2008 Fall 2008

• Why cooperative learning and spelling Why cooperative learning and spelling achievement?achievement?– Saw a lack of cooperative learning activities Saw a lack of cooperative learning activities

being provided in the classroom being provided in the classroom – Saw that many students were struggling on Saw that many students were struggling on

spelling tests despite the hw assigned to them spelling tests despite the hw assigned to them each nighteach night

IntroductionIntroduction

What is cooperative learning and why is it used?What is cooperative learning and why is it used?

• Cooperative learning is defined as “students Cooperative learning is defined as “students working together in a group small enough that working together in a group small enough that everyone can participate on a collective task everyone can participate on a collective task that has been clearly assigned” (Cohen, 1994).that has been clearly assigned” (Cohen, 1994).

• In addition to boosting academic achievement, In addition to boosting academic achievement, cooperative learning groups are used in some cooperative learning groups are used in some instances to boost motivation, improve social instances to boost motivation, improve social skills, and increase self-efficacy (Emmer, skills, and increase self-efficacy (Emmer, 2002). 2002).

Review of LiteratureReview of Literature

What is needed to make CL groups most efficient in What is needed to make CL groups most efficient in the classroom?the classroom?

• One necessity that many of the articles agreed One necessity that many of the articles agreed upon was that teachers must instruct the upon was that teachers must instruct the students on how to conduct themselves in a students on how to conduct themselves in a cooperative learning group and clearly define the cooperative learning group and clearly define the expectations of the assignment (Emmer, 2002). expectations of the assignment (Emmer, 2002).

• Additionally, one study showed that students who Additionally, one study showed that students who were a part of an ineffective cooperative learning were a part of an ineffective cooperative learning group were more likely to cite the teacher as a group were more likely to cite the teacher as a reason for their ineffectiveness (Hijzen, 2007).reason for their ineffectiveness (Hijzen, 2007).– The teacher’s role at this time is to monitor for The teacher’s role at this time is to monitor for

understanding, offer support when needed, and to make understanding, offer support when needed, and to make sure to present tasks that are challenging and ensure sure to present tasks that are challenging and ensure critical thinking (Gillies, 2008)critical thinking (Gillies, 2008)

Literature Continued…Literature Continued…

Are CL groups effective with special needs and gifted Are CL groups effective with special needs and gifted populations?populations?

• Cooperative learning groups are advocated for use Cooperative learning groups are advocated for use within both regular education classrooms as well as within both regular education classrooms as well as classrooms with special education students (Fore, classrooms with special education students (Fore, 2006). 2006).

• One study stated that gifted students showed gains One study stated that gifted students showed gains in reading achievement when placed in in reading achievement when placed in heterogeneous groups as well as homogeneous heterogeneous groups as well as homogeneous (Mellser, 1999). (Mellser, 1999).

• Contrastingly, another study showed that gifted Contrastingly, another study showed that gifted students actually feel better about working in students actually feel better about working in homogeneous groups because it is more homogeneous groups because it is more stimulating and challenging than when working stimulating and challenging than when working with less-capable peers (Matthews, 1992). with less-capable peers (Matthews, 1992).

Literature Continued…Literature Continued…

Are CL groups effective for urban Are CL groups effective for urban populations?populations?

• One study done of elementary school One study done of elementary school African American males revealed that they African American males revealed that they felt they learned best through cooperative felt they learned best through cooperative learning groups with limited teacher learning groups with limited teacher interaction (Wilson-Jones, 2004). interaction (Wilson-Jones, 2004).

• Another study done in Bermuda revealed Another study done in Bermuda revealed that students of color showed gains in that students of color showed gains in achievement and attitudes toward math achievement and attitudes toward math when using CL methods. (Vaughan, 2002).when using CL methods. (Vaughan, 2002).

Literature Continued…Literature Continued…

• It is hypothesized that students who It is hypothesized that students who complete spelling enrichment tasks in complete spelling enrichment tasks in cooperative learning groups will improve cooperative learning groups will improve more significantly on spelling tests than more significantly on spelling tests than students who work individually. students who work individually.

Statement of HypothesisStatement of Hypothesis

• Urban elementary school in Northeastern Urban elementary school in Northeastern Washington, DC.Washington, DC.

• Majority of students in the school are of Majority of students in the school are of low SES.low SES.

• Study will include one (1) combination Study will include one (1) combination 22ndnd/3/3rdrd grade classroom grade classroom– 25 students: Twelve 225 students: Twelve 2ndnd graders/ Thirteen 3 graders/ Thirteen 3rdrd

gradersgraders– All but one student is African AmericanAll but one student is African American

Methodology: ParticipantsMethodology: Participants

• Spelling enrichment tasksSpelling enrichment tasks– Created by cooperative teacher and researcherCreated by cooperative teacher and researcher

• ObservationsObservations– Researcher will observe interactions, Researcher will observe interactions,

behaviors, progress, etc. of students during behaviors, progress, etc. of students during taskstasks

• End of intervention student surveyEnd of intervention student survey– Created by researcher to assess students’ Created by researcher to assess students’

feelings on enrichment tasks and feelings feelings on enrichment tasks and feelings toward working in groups or as individualstoward working in groups or as individuals

Methodology: InstrumentsMethodology: Instruments

• Study will begin with the assignment of students Study will begin with the assignment of students to work in either groups or individuals.to work in either groups or individuals.– Assignments will be made using a random table of Assignments will be made using a random table of

numbers. numbers. • To act as a basis of comparison, the average To act as a basis of comparison, the average

scores of students’ previous spelling tests will be scores of students’ previous spelling tests will be determined before the intervention takes place. determined before the intervention takes place.

• Students will then experience the intervention for Students will then experience the intervention for a period of 4 weeks. After each week, an a period of 4 weeks. After each week, an assessment will be administered.assessment will be administered.

• Finally, an average of these four assessments will Finally, an average of these four assessments will be determined. be determined.

• Additionally, students will complete an Additionally, students will complete an enrichment activities student survey. enrichment activities student survey.

Methodology: DesignMethodology: Design

Pre-Study Treatment Assessment Post-Study

Mean scores from previous spelling tests

without cooperative

groups

4 week intervention (4 assessments)

Individual work: Control

Cooperative group work:

Experimental

Average of four weekly spelling

testsafter the onset of the spelling intervention

Enrichment Activities

Student Survey

• Both students in groups and those working Both students in groups and those working as individuals will work on the same as individuals will work on the same enrichment tasks at the same time. enrichment tasks at the same time. – Interventions will run for 30-45 minutes once Interventions will run for 30-45 minutes once

per week for a total of four weeks. per week for a total of four weeks.

• Throughout the week, students will Throughout the week, students will continue to complete their spelling continue to complete their spelling homework.homework.

• At the end of each week, students will be At the end of each week, students will be assessed on the 20 high frequency words assessed on the 20 high frequency words of the week. of the week.

Methodology: ProcedureMethodology: Procedure

1.1. The researcher and/or teacher will call out a word from the The researcher and/or teacher will call out a word from the spelling list and have the students locate the correct word in spelling list and have the students locate the correct word in their flash cards. This will allow students to use their their flash cards. This will allow students to use their knowledge of phonics to identify the correct words even if they knowledge of phonics to identify the correct words even if they can’t quite spell them on their own yet. The students who are can’t quite spell them on their own yet. The students who are in groups will have to hold up one flash card which they have in groups will have to hold up one flash card which they have all agreed is correct whereas the individuals will have to all agreed is correct whereas the individuals will have to choose on their own. choose on their own.

2.2. Students will create flash cards of each word in their spelling Students will create flash cards of each word in their spelling list. Students in the groups will quiz each other using the flash list. Students in the groups will quiz each other using the flash cards and work together to memorize the correct spelling. As cards and work together to memorize the correct spelling. As for the individuals, they will do the same only by themselves.for the individuals, they will do the same only by themselves.

3.3. Students will be asked to identify the number of letters in each Students will be asked to identify the number of letters in each word and then break that into the number of vowels and word and then break that into the number of vowels and consonants in each word. consonants in each word.

Spelling Enrichment TasksSpelling Enrichment Tasks

• The statistical method that will be used to The statistical method that will be used to compare the previous test scores with the compare the previous test scores with the post-treatment scores will be an analysis post-treatment scores will be an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). of covariance (ANCOVA).

• Additionally, survey results will be Additionally, survey results will be reported according to the major themes reported according to the major themes presented in them. presented in them.

Methodology: Data AnalysisMethodology: Data Analysis

• The study will begin during the second The study will begin during the second week of my student teaching which is week of my student teaching which is tentatively scheduled for January 2009. tentatively scheduled for January 2009.

• The intervention will last four weeks and The intervention will last four weeks and analysis of the data will be completed analysis of the data will be completed promptly after. Final results will be promptly after. Final results will be reported within 6-8 weeks of the start of reported within 6-8 weeks of the start of the study. the study.

Methodology: Time ScheduleMethodology: Time Schedule

  • Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small Cohen, E. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small

groups. groups. Review of Educational ResearchReview of Educational Research, , 6464(1), 1-35. (1), 1-35.

  • Emmer, E., & Gerwels, M. (2002). Cooperative learning in elementary Emmer, E., & Gerwels, M. (2002). Cooperative learning in elementary

classrooms: Teaching practices and lesson characteristics. classrooms: Teaching practices and lesson characteristics. Elementary School Elementary School JournalJournal, , 103103(1), 75-91.(1), 75-91.

  • Fore, I., Riser, S., & Boon, R. (2006). Implications of cooperative learning and Fore, I., Riser, S., & Boon, R. (2006). Implications of cooperative learning and

educational reform for students with mild disabilities. educational reform for students with mild disabilities. Reading ImprovementReading Improvement, , 4343(1), 3-12.(1), 3-12.

  • Gillies, R. M., and Boyle, M. (2008). Teachers' discourse cooperative learning Gillies, R. M., and Boyle, M. (2008). Teachers' discourse cooperative learning

and their perceptions of this pedagogical practice. and their perceptions of this pedagogical practice. Teaching and teacher Teaching and teacher education,education, 24, 1333-1348. 24, 1333-1348.

  • Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M., and Vedderm P. (2007). Exploring the links between Hijzen, D., Boekaerts, M., and Vedderm P. (2007). Exploring the links between

students' engagement in cooperative learning, their goal preferences and students' engagement in cooperative learning, their goal preferences and appraisals of instructional conditions in the classroom. appraisals of instructional conditions in the classroom. Learning and Learning and instruction, instruction, 17, 673-687.17, 673-687.

ReferencesReferences

• Matthews, M. (1992). Gifted students talk about cooperative learning. Matthews, M. (1992). Gifted students talk about cooperative learning. Educational LeadershipEducational Leadership, , 5050(2), 48-50.(2), 48-50.

  • Melser, N. (1999). Gifted students and cooperative learning: A study of grouping Melser, N. (1999). Gifted students and cooperative learning: A study of grouping

strategies. strategies. Roeper ReviewRoeper Review, , 2121(4), 315.(4), 315.

  • Piaget, J. (1972). The principles of genetic epistemology. New York: Routledge. Piaget, J. (1972). The principles of genetic epistemology. New York: Routledge.

  • Slavin, Robert. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: Slavin, Robert. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement:

What we know, what we need to know. What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary educational psychology, Contemporary educational psychology, 21, 43-69.21, 43-69.

  • Stevens, R. & Slavin, R. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on Stevens, R. & Slavin, R. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on

students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relationships. students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relationships. American American Educational Research Journal, 32(2Educational Research Journal, 32(2), 321-351), 321-351..

  

Ref. Cont.Ref. Cont.

• Vaughan, W. (2002). Effects of Cooperative Learning on Achievement and Vaughan, W. (2002). Effects of Cooperative Learning on Achievement and Attitude Among Students of Color. Attitude Among Students of Color. Journal of Educational ResearchJournal of Educational Research, , 9595(6), 359.(6), 359.

  

• Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Readings Readings on the development of children. on the development of children. New York: Scientific American Books.New York: Scientific American Books.

  

• Wilson-Jones, L., & Caston, M. (2004, December). Cooperative Learning on Wilson-Jones, L., & Caston, M. (2004, December). Cooperative Learning on Academic Achievement in Elementary African American Males. Academic Achievement in Elementary African American Males. Journal of Journal of Instructional PsychologyInstructional Psychology, , 3131(4), 280-283.(4), 280-283.

Ref. Cont.Ref. Cont.