Creative Education 2013. Vol.4, No.2, 98-100 Published nline !ebruar" 2013 in #ci$es %htt&'(())).scir&.

or*(+ournal(ce,

-.+t/ #cienti0ic ..1. $esearch

htt&'((d2.doi.or*(10.4233(ce.2013.42014

E00ect o0 Coo&erative 4earnin* on #econdar" #chool #tudents5 6athe7atics 8chieve7ent

E00andi 9a:aria1, ;iti #ol0itri2, <uso00 =aud1, 9ul:arnain 9ainal 8bidin2
1

!acult" o0 Education, >niversiti ?eban*saan 6ala"sia, @an*i, 6ala"sia 2!acult" o0 ;eacher ;rainin* and Education, >niversiti $iau, Pe:anbaru, Andonesia E7ail' e00andiBu:7.7" $eceived Nove7ber 22nd, 2012C revised =ece7ber 2Dth, 2012C acce&ted Eanuar" 3th, 2013

;he &ur&ose o0 this stud" )as to deter7ine the e00ects o0 coo&erative learnin* on students5 7athe7atics achieve7ent in secondar" school students in Pe:anbaru, Andonesia. An addition, this stud" also deter7ined students5 &erce&tion concernin* coo&erative learnin*. ;he sa7&les o0 this stud" consisted o0 31 !or7 ;hree students. An order to control the di00erences o0 de&endent variables, a &re-test )as *iven be0ore treat7ent. 80ter treat7ent, a &ost-test )as ad7inistered to both *rou&s. ;)o t"&es o0 instru7ents )ere used to collect the data' the 7athe7atics achieve7ent test and o&en-ended Fuestions on coo&erative learnin*. ;he &re-test and the &ost-test data )ere anal"Ged usin* t-test. Content anal"sis )as used 0or the o&en-ended Fuestions on coo&erative learnin*. ;he results sho)ed that there )as a si*ni0icant di00erence o0 7ean in students5 7athe7atics achieve7ent bet)een the coo&erative *rou& and the traditional *rou&. Content anal"sis data revealed that students in the coo&erative *rou& )ere able to increase their understandin* and to develo& their sel0-con0idence.

Keywords' 6athe7atics 8chieve7entC Ei*sa) Coo&erative 4earnin*C >nderstandin*C #el0-Con0idence

Introduction
6athe7atics is still a sub+ect that is considered di00icult and borin* to 7an" students. 8ccordin* to Hoodard %2004,, )ea:er students 0eel an2iet" to)ard 7athe7atics, and this an2iet" a00ects their &er0or7ance in 7athe7atics. #tudents )ho lac: 7aster" in 7athe7atics are less success0ul, des&ite bein* in secondar" schools 0or a lon* &eriod o0 ti7e. !urther7ore, lo) &ro0icienc" students in 7athe7atics &er0or7ed belo) avera*e on the national tests in Andonesia. @ased on observations o0 hi*h school 7athe7atics students, the in0or7ation sho)s that students are not activel" involved in develo&in* :no)led*eC the" receive in0or7ation &assivel" and are less 7otivated. ;his &assivit" has caused 7uch concern a7on* educators because :no)led*e o0 7athe7atics &la"s a si*ni0icant role in enhancin* the countr"5s social econo7ic develo&7ent. ;he Fualit" o0 education that teachers &rovide to students is de&endent u&on )hat teachers do in their classroo7 %9a:aria I A:san, 200D,. ;he teachin* 7ethod used in the class is one o0 the 0actors that 7a:e students beco7e &assive and have less interaction )ith each other in doin* tas:s. 4aGaro)itG, JertG4aGaro)itG, and @aird %1994, have criticiGed the lecture 7ethod use b" teachers because onl" hard)or:in* students can bene0it 0ro7 it. ;here0ore, to enhance the understandin* o0 7athe7atics, students 7ust be 7ore active in the classroo7 and 7ust creativel" acFuire :no)led*e, es&eciall" in understandin* and solvin* 7athe7atical &roble7s. #tudents should be *iven the o&&ortunities to develo&, to interact, and to share )ith 0riends throu*h coo&erative learnin* activit". ;hus, the co*nitive and a00ective develo&7ent o0 students in 7athe7atics can be i7&roved. 8n alternative 7ethod 0or the deliver" o0 7aterial is coo&erative learnin*. 9a:aria and A:san %200D, a*ree that in coo&erative learnin* students )or: 0ace to 0ace to co7&lete a *iven tas: collectivel". Coo&erative learnin* encoura*es students to be active &artici&ants in the construction o0 their o)n :no)led*e %Hebb, ;ro&er, I !all, 199K,. Coo&erative

learnin* also encoura*es students to interact and to co77unicate )ith &eers in har7on". An this )a", coo&erative learnin* &ro7otes values such as honest", coo&eration, 7utual res&ect, res&onsibilit", tolerance, and )illin* to sacri0ice a consensus. E2ecution o0 duties in coo&erative learnin* can develo& sel0-con0idence in &u&ils. 8 stud" b" 9a:aria, Chin, and =aud %2010, 0ound that coo&erative learnin* i7&roves students5 achieve7ent in 7athe7atics. !urther, coo&erative learnin* is an e00ective a&&roach that 7athe7atics teachers need to incor&orate into their teachin*. Coo&erative learnin* &ro7otes dee& learnin* o0 7aterials and hel&s students to achieve better *rades %#hi7aGoe I 8l- drich, 2010,. 8ccordin* to Eohnson and Eohnson %1989,, in coo&erative learnin*, students tend to en+o" 7athe7atics, and this en+o"7ent 7otivates the7 to learn. 6elihan and #irri %2011, concluded that the coo&erative learnin* 7ethod is 7ore e00ective than the traditional teachin* 7ethod in the acade7ic success o0 students.

Purpose and Objectives of the Study

;he &ur&ose o0 this stud" is to deter7ine the e00ects o0 +i*sa) coo&erative learnin* on achieve7ent in 7athe7atics. An addition, this stud" also loo:s at students5 &erce&tions o0 +i*sa) coo&erative learnin*. ;he s&eci0ic ob+ectives o0 this stud" are as 0ollo)s' 1, to deter7ine )hether there is a statisticall" si*ni0icant di00erence in 7athe7atics achieve7ent bet)een students tau*ht usin* +i*sa) coo&erative 7ethods and students tau*ht usin* traditional 7ethods and 2, to deter7ine the &erce&tions o0 students )hen the" are e2&osed to +i*sa) coo&erative learnin*.

Hypothesis of the Study

;he 0ollo)in* null h"&othesis )as tested. J01L;here is no si*ni0icant di00erence in 7athe7atics achieve7ent bet)een students )ho are e2&osed to +i*sa) coo&erative learnin* and those )ho are e2&osed to traditional 7ethods.

98

Co&"ri*ht M 2013 #ci$es.

E. 98?8$A8 E; 84.

able !"

Methodology
;he desi*n o0 this stud" is a Fuasi-e2&eri7ent consistin* o0 treat7ent *rou& and a control *rou&, since the classes e2isted as intact *rou&s. Pre-tests )ere used to deter7ine the eFualit" o0 the t)o *rou&s. ;his stud" consisted o0 31 students, divided into t)o *rou&s consistin* o0 30 students in the control *rou& and 31 students in the treat7ent *rou&. ;reat7ent *rou&s )ere e2&osed to +i*sa) coo&erative learnin*, )hile the control *rou& )as *iven the traditional teachin* 7ethod. ;he teacher )ho i7&le7ented the +i*sa) coo&erative learnin* under)ent trainin* on the use o0 coo&erative learnin* in order to ensure that it )as i7&le7ented as &lanned. >&on co7&letion o0 instruction, &ost-tests )ere conducted to deter7ine the di00erence bet)een the *rou&s. Anstru7ents used in this stud" )ere 7athe7atics achieve7ent tests and students5 &erce&tions o0 +i*sa) coo&erative learnin*. 6athe7atics achieve7ent is 7easured usin* &er0or7ance test tools. ;he test consists o0 si2 o&en-ended Fuestions and t)elve 7ulti&le-choice ite7s. ;he reliabilit" coe00icient %?$20, o0 the test )as 0ound to be 0.81. ;he researchers in collaboration )ith 7athe7atics teachers develo&ed the Fuestions. ;he Fuestions cover inte*rals, area, and volu7e. ;he content o0 the tests )as validated b" a *rou& o0 e2&erts in 7athe7atics education. ;his test )as *iven to both *rou&s be 0ore and a0ter instruction )as co7&leted. 8 Fuestionnaire )as used to 7easure the students5 &erce&tion to)ards coo&erative learnin*. At contained 0ive o&en-ended Fuestions *iven to students )ho )ere e2&osed to coo&erative learnin* 7ethods. Content anal"sis )as used to deter7ine the res&onse o0 students to)ards +i*sa) coo&erative learnin*. !or this stud", the res&onse cate*ories )ere develo&ed as 0ollo)s' 1, develo& and label codes related to FuestionC 2, record the results coded accordin* to FuestionC 3, incor&orate the &attern into a sin*le cate*or"C 4, deter7ine the nu7ber o0 res&onse cate*ories co7binedC and K, 0or7 tables and anal"sis. ;he conditions under )hich the instru7ent )as ad7inistered )ere :e&t as si7ilar as &ossible in order to control 0or interaction bet)een selection and instru7ent %Nall, Nall, I @or*, 2003,.

Pre-test anal"sis o0 di00erences in 7athe7atics achieve7ent bet)een the t)o *rou&s. 6ean #td. deviation d0 t-value &-value E2&eri7ental Control 9.3K 9.9D K.K8 3.10 K9 -.21K .831

able #"
Post-test anal"sis o0 di00erences in 7athe7atics achieve7ent bet)een the t)o *rou&s.

6ean E2&eri7ental Control KK.19 4D.4D

#td. deviation 11.32 1K.10

=0 t-value &-value K9 2.24K .029

control *rou& at the al&ha level o0 .0K. ;here0ore, the null h"&othesis )as re+ected. At can be concluded that the 7athe7atics achieve7ent o0 students throu*h +i*sa) coo&erative learnin* )as better than 7athe7atics achieve7ent o0 students under*oin* traditional instruction.

Analysis of Students' Perception of %ooperative &earning

able ' &resents the res&onse o0 the res&ondents re*ardin* coo&erative learnin*. #tudents )ere as:ed to e2&ress their o&inions about )hether the" li:ed their e2&erience in +i*sa) coo&erative learnin* or not re*ardin* and to state the reasons )h". !or those )ho &re0erred coo&erative learnin*, the res&onses *iven b" 7ost students )ere bein* able to discuss and to e2chan*e ideas )ith 0riends )ithout 0ear %23.1O,, the idea that students can 7a:e 0riends and as: Fuestions %23.2O,, en+o"in* learnin* in *rou&s %13.2O,, 7ore Fuic:l" understandin* )hen a 0riend *ave an e2&lanation %10.DO,, and not bein* a0raid i0 an error occurred %10.3O,, and bein* enthusiastic and 7otivated %D.KO,. 8s sho)n in able ($ the hi*hest res&onse )as that +i*sa) coo&erative learnin* can enhance the students5 understandin* o0 the lessons learned, 0ollo)ed b" the idea that coo&erative learnin* raises their sel0-con0idence and increases their 7otivation. ;he students also 0elt that coo&erative learnin* i7&roved their acade7ic &er0or7ance, created sense o0 to*etherness a7on* the7, and *ave the7 0reedo7 to *ive o&inions.

Findings Analysis of Students' Mathematics Achievement

#tudents in the e2&eri7ental *rou& had a 7ean score o0 9.3K )ith a standard deviation o0 K.K8. #tudents in the control *rou& had a 7ean score o0 9.9D )ith a standard deviation o0 3.10. ;he t-test "ielded a score o0 -.21K )ith K9 de*rees o0 0reedo7, and the di00erences )ere not statisticall" si*ni0icant. ;he results o0 the t-test are dis&la"ed in able !" @ecause there )as no si*ni0icant di00erence bet)een the *rou&s on the &re-test scores, it )as &ossible to assess the di00erence bet)een *rou&s on the &ost-test b" 7eans o0 a t-test. 8s sho)n in able #$ havin* &er0or7ed t-test, there )as a statisticall" si*ni0icant di00erence in the 7ean o0 7athe7atics achieve7ent o0 students across the e2&eri7ental *rou&s and

)iscussion *ffects of %ooperative &earning on Mathematics Achievement

;he results o0 this stud" indicate that coo&erative learnin* 7ethods result in hi*her 7athe7atics achieve7ent than the traditional teachin* 7ethods. 8 &robable reason is that, )hen students e2&lain and receive e2&lanations 0ro7 each other in *rou&, the" retain the ne) conce&ts 7uch lon*er in their 7e7or". ;he" better understand )hat the" have learned and there0ore i7&rove their &er0or7ance. ;he coo&erative a&&roach has the ele7ent o0 accountabilit" and interde&endence e7bedded in a structure that is not 0ound in the traditional classroo7. ;his stud" su&&orts the 0indin*s conducted b" 9a:aria et al. %2010, and 6elihan and #irri %2011,. ;he &ositive i7&act &roduced b"

99

Co&"ri*ht M 2013 #ci$es.

E. 98?8$A8 E; 84.

able '"
Perce&tion o0 students5 on +i*sa) coo&erative learnin*.

23. 1 23. 2 13.2 10. D E00ect o0 coo&erative learnin* on students. !reFuenc" 10.3 %&ercent, K9.3 D.K

understandin* and sel0-con0idence. ;hese results )ould i7&l" that incor&oratin* coo&erative learnin* in the 7athe7atics classroo7 )ould enhance the learnin* o0 7athe7atics in secondar" schools. A7&le7entation o0 +i*sa) coo&erative learnin* should be revie)ed in ter7s o0 :no)led*e and s:ills o0 each teacher. An this case, trainin* and continuous &ro0essional develo&7ent is needed 0or teachers, and collaboration a7on* teachers should be encoura*ed throu*h holdin* re*ular 7eetin*s, both 0or7al and in0or7al. ;eachers can learn 0ro7 each other and can e2a7ine the stren*ths and )ea:nesses o0 the instruction that has been i7&le7ented, and their e2&erience can be shared )ith each other to &roduce better )or:.

-*F*-*.%*S
8rra, C. ;., =58ntonio, 6. =., I =58ntonio Er., 6. %2011,. #tudents5 &re0erences 0or coo&erative learnin* instructional a&&roaches' Considerations 0or colle*e teachers. Journal of Research in Education, 21, 114-123. Nall, 6. =., Nall, E. P., I @or*, H. $. %2003,. Educational research' 8n introduction %Dth ed.,. @oston' 8ll"n I @acon. Eohnson, =. H., I Eohnson, $. ;. %1989,. Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, 6N' Anteraction. 4aGaro)itG, $., JertG4aGaro)itG, $., I @aird, E. %1994,. 4earnin* science in a coo&erative settin*' 8cade7ic achieve7ent and a00ective outco7es. Journal of Research in Science Teachin , !1, 1121-1131. doi'10.1002(tea.3330311003 6elihan, >., I #irri, 8. %2011,. ;he e00ect o0 coo&erative learnin* 7ethod on the students5 success and recall levels o0 the 8th *rade students learnin* in &er7utation and &robabilit" sub+ect. Journal of Kirsehir Education "aculty, 12, 1-13. #hi7aGoe, E., I 8ldrich, J. %2010,. Nrou& can be *rati0"in*' >nderstandin* and overco7in* resistance to coo&erative learnin*. Colle e Teachin , #$, K2-KD. doi'10.1080(8DK3DKK0903418K94 #lavin, $. E. %199K,. Cooperati%e learnin :

able ("

$es&onse

Enhance understandin* $aises con0idence Ancrease 7otivation A7&rove acade7ic &er0or7ance #ense o0 to*etherness !ree to *ive o&inion $es&onse Can 7a:e 0riends and as: Fuestions En+o" learnin* in a *rou& 6ore Fuic:l" understand )hen a 0riend e2&lain Not a0raid i0 an error occurred Enthusiastic and 7otivated

1K.3 2.K 8.3 D.0 3.4 3.4 !reFuenc" %&ercent, 2.3 2.2 2.0

Can discuss and e2chan*e vie)s )ith 0riends )ithout 0ear

Theory, research, and practice. @oston' 8ll"n I @acon. #lavin, $. E. %1993,. $esearch on
coo&erative learnin* and achieve7ent' Hhat )e :no), )hat )e need to :no). Contemporary Educational &sycholo y, 21, 43-39. doi'10.1003(ce&s.1993.0004 Hebb, N., ;ro&er, E., I !all, $. %199K,. Constructive activit" and learnin* in collaborative s7all *rou&s. Journal of Educational &sy' cholo y, $(, 403-423. doi'10.103D(0022-0333.8D.3.403 Hoodard, ;. %2004,. ;he e00ects o0 7ath an2iet" on &ost-secondar" develo&7ental students as related to achieve7ent, *ender, and a*e. )n*uiry, +. >$4 %last chec:ed 24 ctober 2012,. htt&'(())).vccaedu.or*(inFuir"( 9a:aria, E., Chin, 4. C., I =aud, 6. <. %2010,. ;he e00ects o0 coo&erative learnin* on students5 7athe7atics achieve7ent and attitude to)ards 7athe7atics. Journal of Social Science, ,, 2D2-2DK. 9a:aria, E., I A:san, 9. %200D,. Pro7otin* coo&erative learnin* in science and 7athe7atics education' 8 6ala"sia &ers&ective. Eurasia Journal of -athematics, Science . Technolo y Education, !, 3K-39.

=o not li:e to learn in *rou& =o not understand because the" cannot co77unicate =iscussion not 0ocused !riends do not )ant to hel&

coo&erative learnin* sho)s the i7&ortance o0 student interaction as &ro&osed b" V"*ots:" and Pia*et.

Student Perceptions to+ards ,igsa+ %ooperative &earning

;he results sho)ed that students &re0er +i*sa) coo&erative learnin*. ;he &ercenta*e o0 students )ho &re0er coo&erative learnin* is hi*her than the &ercenta*e o0 students )ho do not li:e coo&erative learnin*. ;he students in the stud" &erceived that coo&erative learnin* )as bene0icial to the7. An short, the" )ere )illin* to hel& and to coo&erate )ith each other and to &ro7ote each other5s learnin*. ;hese attitudes hel& to build *rou& identit" and create an environ7ent conducive to learnin* %#lavin, 1993,. Jo)ever, it should be noted that so7e students &re0erred not to )or: in *rou&, 7eanin* that coo&erative learnin* is not 0or ever"one %8rra, =58ntonio, I =58ntonio, 2011,. ;eachers should be a)are o0 students5 &re0erences in learnin*.

%onclusion

;he results reveal that coo&erative learnin* can increase 7athe7atics achieve7ent. Coo&erative learnin* also enhances

100

Co&"ri*ht M 2013 #ci$es.