UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of cooperative learning on the on-task behavior and attitudes toward learning and school… Neilson, Donna L. 1993

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-ubc_1993_fall_neilson_donna.pdf [ 7.98MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054834.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054834-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054834-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054834-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054834-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054834-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054834-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054834-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054834.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING ON THE ON-TASKBEHAVIOR AND ATTITUDES TOWARD LEARNING AND SCHOOLOF YOUNG ADOLESCENTSbyDONNA LOUISE NEILSONB.Ed., The University of British Columbia, 1975A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Curriculum and Instruction)We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAJuly 1993© Donna Louise Neilson, 1993In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(SignatureDepartment ofThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate ^f DE-6 (2/88)ABSTRACTThis research investigated the effect that cooperative learning had on increasing theon-task behavior and formation of attitudes toward learning and school of youngadolescents. A quasi-experimental study was conducted on a sample of 27 Grade 6students. Embedded in this study was a detailed case study of six individuals.The teacher-researcher used a pre-posttest design employing the Harter  Scale ofIntrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In The Classroom (1980) to measure theclassroom orientation of all students and to determine their motivation for learning.T-tests and multivariate analyses were conducted on the motivational andinformational components of the scale. In addition, a non-equivalent time samplesdesign was used to investigate the on-task behavior of the 6 subjects selected forcase study. The data results were analyzed using a single case experimental designof Split Middle Method Of Trend Analysis. Additional informal measures andstudents' journal writing provided further qualitative data to indicate students'attitudes toward learning and school. Factors of gender and academic ability wereconsidered.The major findings of the research were that cooperative learning increased the on-task behavior of young adolescents and their intrinsic orientation in the classroom,thus positively affecting motivation and attitudes toward learning. Gender specificdata revealed that male scores significantly increased on the motivationalcomponents whereas female scores increased on the informational components ofthe Scale. Data also provided documentation for quality of interaction betweenpeers as it influenced effective group functioning. The study concludes withrecommendations for educators implementing cooperative learning for use withyoung adolescents.iiTABLE OF CONTENTSABS'T'RACT^ iiTABLE OF CONTENTS^ iiiLIST OF TABLES vLIST OF FIGURES^ viLIST OF EQUATIONS viiiACKNOWLEDGEMENT^ ixDEDICATION:^ XCHAPTER ONE: THE PROBLEM^ 1Theoretical Framework 3Definition Of Terms^ 7Limitations Of The Study 9Significance Of The Proposed Research^  10CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE^ 12Approaches To Cooperative Learning^  14Perspectives On Cooperative Learning 16Young Adolescents And Cooperative Learning 23Time On Task^ 30Research Summary 34CHAPTER THREE: METHOD^ 37Subjects And Site^ 37Design^ 42Data Collection 44Procedure 49Baseline Phase^ 49Intervention Phase 55Description Of The Treatment^ 59Data Analysis ^  66CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS^ 69Introduction^ 69Initial Analysis 70Hypothesis 1 70Hypothesis 2 83Further Analysis^ 88Case Study--Student A^ 88Case Study--Student B 98Case Study--Student C  107ivCase Study--Student D^  116Case Study--Student E  124Case Study--Student F  132CHAPTER FIVE: DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS^ 141Time-On-Task Behavior^  142Attitudes Toward Learning And School^  152Recommendations For Further Research  164Implications For Teachers  165REFERENCES^ 169APPENDIX A: Time On Task Data Collection Instrument^ 175APPENDIX B: Time On Task Data Collection Instrument (completed) ^ 177APPENDIX C: Scale Of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic OrientationIn The Classroom^ 179APPENDIX D: Group Work Preference Questionnaire^ 182APPENDIX E: The Story^  184APPENDIX F: Lesson And Student Activities--Baseline Phase^ 185APPENDIX G: Lesson And Student Activities--Intervention Phase^ 190APPENDIX H: Sequence Of Materials Read^ 203APPENDIX I: Cooperative Checklist 204APPENDIX J: Group Work Questionnaire--Student A^ 205APPENDIX K: Group Work Questionnaire--Student B 206APPENDIX L: Group Work Questionnaire--Student C^ 207APPENDIX M: Group Work Questionnaire--Student D 208APPENDIX N: Group Work Questionnaire--Student E^ 209APPENDIX 0: Group Work Questionnaire--Student F 210vLIST OF TABLESTable 1^Canadian Achievement Test Scores Of Students SelectedFor Case Study^ 41Table 2^Rotational Schedule Of Students Observed^ 54Table 3^Results Of Trend Estimation Of Time On Task Behavior^ 78Table 4^Percentage Increase Of Time On Task Behavior Of ThreeAbility Groups^ 83Table 5^Whole Class Difference Between Means For Five DimensionsOf The Harter Scale 84Table 6^Difference Between Means For The Five Dimensions Of TheHarter Scale For Males And Females^ 85Table 7^Whole Class Difference Between Means For The MotivationalAnd Informational Components Of The Harter Scale^ 87LIST OF FIGURESFigure 1^Nonequivalent Time Samples Design^ 42Figure 2^Pretest Posttest Design^ 43Figure 3^Research Dimensions 43Figure 4^Research Design^ 44Figure 5^Change In On-Task Behavior--Student A^ 72Figure 6^Change In On-Task Behavior--Student B 73Figure 7^Change In On-Task Behavior--Student C^ 74Figure 8^Change In On-Task Behavior--Student D 75Figure 9^Change In On-Task Behavior--Student E^ 76Figure 10^Change In On-Task Behavior--Student F 77Figure 11^Observed Time On Task--High Ability Students^ 79Figure 12^Observed Time On Task--Medium Ability Students 80Figure 13^Observed Time On Task--Low Ability Students^ 81Figure 14^Percentage Of Time On Task^ 82Figure 15^Observed Time On Task--Student A 89Figure 16^Percentage Of On-Task Behavior--Student A^ 92Figure 17^Letter To Myself--Student A^ 93Figure 18^Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In TheClassroom--Student A Profile 94Figure 19^Circles Of Feelings--Student A^ 95Figure 20^Grade Six--Student A^ 97Figure 21^Observed Time On Task--Student B^ 99Figure 22^Percentage Of On-Task Behavior--Student B^ 102Figure 23^Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In TheClassroom--Student B Profile ^  103Figure 24^Circles Of Feelings--Student B  104viviiFigure 25^Making Friends--Student B^  105Figure 26^Dear Me--Student C 108Figure 27^Observed Time On Task--Student C^  109Figure 28^Percentage Of On-Task Behavior--Student C^ 111Figure 29^Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In TheClassroom--Student C Profile ^  113Figure 30^Circles Of Feelings--Student C 114Figure 31^Dear Me--Student D^ 117Figure 32^Observed Time On Task--Student D^ 118Figure 33^Percentage Of On-Task Behavior--Student D^ 120Figure 34^Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In TheClassroom--Student D Profile ^  121Figure 35^Circles Of Feelings--Student D 122Figure 36^Observed Time On Task--Student E^ 125Figure 37^Percentage Of On-Task Behavior--Student E^ 127Figure 38^Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In TheClassroom--Student E Profile ^  128Figure 39^Circles Of Feelings--Student E  130Figure 40^Observed Time On Task--Student F^  133Figure 41^Percentage Of On-Task Behavior--Student F^ 135Figure 42^Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In TheClassroom--Student F Profile ^  136Figure 43^Dear Me--Student F^  138Figure 44^Circles Of Feelings--Student F^  139ViiiLIST OF EQUATIONSEquation 1 Binomial Equation For Calculating Trend Estimation^71ACKNOWLEDGEMENTI wish to make special note of the assistance given to me throughout the preparationof this thesis by my advisor, Dr. Claire Staab, Department of Language Education,University of British Columbia. Dr. Staab was always available to me and I amgrateful for her understanding and guidance.I would also like to express my appreciation to Dr. Walter Boldt, Department ofEducational Psychology, for his assistance with the statistical presentation of thisresearch.My further appreciation is given to my other committee members, Dr. CharlesCurtis and Dr. Jon Shapiro and to my outside reader, Dr. Wendy Sutton, forcommitting their energies to reviewing this work.I would like to acknowledge Mrs. Mary Grant, my teacher assistant, for the help shehas given to the researcher and the children of this class. She exemplifiescooperative effort.Finally, I would like to thank the students in my class for helping me understand andgrow in cooperative learning.ixDEDICATIONTo John, my dear husband and friend, whose support and encouragement helpedme attain my goal and to my family who continue their learning journey.xCHAPTER ONETHE PROBLEMEducators know that the varied and individual needs of the students shoulddetermine which instructional methodologies are used in the classroom. Thedevelopment and implementation of Cooperative Learning as an instructional goalor task structure, recommended for use in the Intermediate Program, receivedconsiderable attention in the policy paper Year 2000: A Curriculum AndAssessment Framework For The Future, a response to the B.C. Royal CommissionOn Education, 1988 (B. C Ministry, 1988). Cooperative learning, a framework thatprovides students with opportunities to work together in order to attain a goal that isbeneficial to all members of the group, is one such strategy extensively researchedfor use with young adolescents and is summarized in reviews by Johnson,Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon (1981), Sharan (1980), and Slavin (1981;1991). This study focuses on two needs in educating young adolescents: encouragingon-task behavior and forming positive attitudes toward learning and school throughthe use of cooperative learning in the classroom.The researcher became particularly interested in pursuing cooperative learning asan instructional strategy as she noticed that traditional instructional strategies anddiscipline procedures previously used were ineffective and that young adolescentswere more difficult to control. Furthermore, these students appeared less interestedin pursuing their academic studies than in socializing, as talking and close contactwith peers seemed essential. Individual seatwork assignments and quiet workingtimes required much more rigorous monitoring as many of the students haddifficulty staying on task for reasonable periods of time. The researcher also1noticed that these young people seemed hesitant to share the results of theirindividual pursuits for fear of judgement by their peers.A central issue in employing new or different pedagogical practices is the effect ofthese instructional strategies on student behaviors and on desired learningoutcomes. Teachers face considerable classroom management and role changeswhen they delegate authority to groups of students. Educators must ensure that notonly is achievement effected as students spend time on task, but also educators mustbe cognizant of the quality of student-engaged time. Student interactions andbehaviors during instructional time could be the physical manifestations of attitudestoward learning and it is these attitudes and the quality of time spent on task thathelp to form learning behavior.The effect of instructional strategies is particularly important when educating youngadolescents, for their unpredictability as they move from childhood to adolescence,makes them a difficult age group to teach. Young adolescents' preoccupation withpersonal identity seeking and peer confirmation often detracts from these students'academic focus and on-task behavior. As a result these students need programs thatmeet their various developmental needs while encouraging task-focused behaviorand positive attitudes toward learning. Cooperative learning may be useful inproviding such a program.Young adolescents' preoccupation with others, often resulting in disruptivebehavior, encouraged the researcher to further examine the developmentalcharacteristics and learning styles of this age group in order to assess the mosteffective pedagogical practices to meet these students' needs. Cooperative learning,because of its nature of bringing students in close contact while encouraging group2participation, could meet the social, emotional, and academic needs of youngadolescents while encouraging positive learning behavior.Theoretical frameworkYoung adolescents, entering or reaching the age of puberty, are in transition fromchildhood to adolescence. These "transescents" are on the threshold of majorchanges in their development, physically, cognitively, socially, and emotionally. Atthis stage, body chemistry may cause hyperactivity or sluggishness, and often mayresult in rapid mood shifts (Adelson, 1980; Santrock, 1990). Marcia, as recorded byAdelson (1980) has stated that these transescents are often confused as they searchfor identity and seek to know who they are and how they fit into their rapidlychanging world. Erikson described this psychological stage as Identity vs. Inferiority,a stage that causes many adolescents to be overly critical of self, and this in turnfosters egocentrism, whereby these students feel they are constantly the focus ofattention (Santrock, 1990). How young adolescents are seen by their peer groupand their interaction within this group becomes the most important aspect of theirlives. The opportunity for small group interaction in the cooperative learning modelprovides students with peer confirmation on their actions and decisions.Piaget has stated that it is also at this time that young adolescents move to adifferent stage in cognitive development, from the Concrete-Operational stage tothe Formal-Operational stage (Santrock, 1990). However, many adolescents arestill not able to maximize learning through formal, lecture-type instruction, andneed alternative programs, curriculum, and instructional strategies (Carnegie, 1989;Epstein & Salinas, 1991; Lipsitz, 1984). Piaget also has identified the need for socialinteraction at this stage of cognitive development. Almost all perspectives on3adolescence note the significant new ways of thinking, feeling, and acting broughtabout by a new cognitive competence in the ability to reflect on one's socialexperience (Leming, 1985). As research has shown that interaction with peersincreases during late childhood and adolescence (Berndt & Ladd, 1989) and thatadolescents process information during peer interaction (Myers, 1990; Santrock,1990; Sherrod, 1982; Slavin, 1987;), opportunities given for peer group learningactivities promote meaningful participation in school and classroom life (Leming,1985; Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1980). A cooperative learning goal structure providesopportunities for students to cognitively restructure concepts for clearerunderstanding and present them within a social context.Variability and change in young adolescents makes them a difficult group to instruct(Feeny, 1980), and their attention is often selective or divided between subject andpeers. Instructional strategies that engage these students and encourage activeparticipation provide for a more pleasant classroom environment with lessdisruptive behavior and fewer discipline problems while enhancing academicachievement (Parker, 1985; Leming, 1985). Within this learning environment,young adolescents may receive positive feedback about their competencies, and thusimprove their attitude toward self and school. Cooperative learning fosters activeparticipation while engaging students in academic tasks and exchange of ideas. Ifthe feedback is positive it will enhance students' self-esteem. Conscious teaching ofsocial skills within a cooperative framework and the educator's knowledge ofcooperative processes at work within that framework are needed to encouragepositive attitudes and students' attending to task.For teachers of young adolescents it is often difficult to strike a balance betweenexternal control of their learning and increased internal motivation. Positive4attitudes toward school and the increased perception of personal competencies mayincrease young adolescents' motivation to learn. As students are encouraged tobecome active participants in their learning, receiving positive feedback from theirpeers, they begin to realize that the locus of control can reside within. Thisenhanced perception of one's abilities could enhance intrinsic motivation (Brewer,Dunn, & Olszewski, 1988; Johnson, 1981). This, in turn, will affect academicperformance (Slavin, 1987a; 1989).Cooperative learning has been suggested as an effective instructional strategy formeeting the needs of young adolescents (Becker, 1990; Epstein, 1990; McIver, 1990)as it encourages active learning and increased participation. As stated, students atthis age are engaged in identity seeking and coping with mature physicaldevelopment. The enhancement of self-esteem and formation of positive attitudestoward self and others is an important aspect of their curriculum. Cooperativelearning provides these students with an opportunity to model, process, and evaluateinformation in the presence of others of their age group. This reinforcementprovides immediate feedback of one's competencies thus enhancing self-esteem.Cooperative learning is also an effective goal structure for developing cognitivecompetence. Even though young adolescents are proceeding to a new stage incognition they need social context to process information effectively. Studentsparticipating in cooperative learning are able to engage in cognitive restructuring asthey teach and learn from each other, and in so doing are further able to validatetheir competencies.Social interaction is inevitable with young adolescents and much of this socializingwill take place in the classroom. If a forum for peer interaction is not established,5then interaction will take place "underground", often at the expense of academicpursuits. This interaction may be construed by educators as negative, off-taskbehavior, and as peer group norms may be counterproductive to achievement, moreexternal control may be needed. Cooperative learning provides a legitimate forumfor peer interaction while enabling students to pursue academic tasks. As youngadolescents engage in this social context of learning they may exhibit more on-taskbehavior and academic achievement will be enhanced. The locus of control shiftsfrom external management by the teacher to internal motivation of the student anda desire to conform to more positive group norms.Cooperative learning enhances achievement, but in addition there are many otherpositive outcomes in the affective and interpersonal domains (Slavin, 1990a; 1991a).As students are actively engaged in the cooperative goal structure their attitudestoward learning may change and they may become more motivated to spend time ontask. This time on task is an important variable in student behavior andachievement, but also it is important in teachers' perceptions of discipline problems.Students attending to task exhibit higher achievement (Strother, 1984), but time ontask has other benefits that may be the most advantageous to young adolescentlearning. If the real product of learning is learning behavior then it is not thequantity of time spent on task but the quality of student engaged time and thebehavior exhibited during that time that is a more immediate indicator of learning.If students are choosing to be on task then not only is academic achievementenhanced, but also positive group norms develop and a pleasant classroomatmosphere ensues. This seems to be contingent on interpersonal relations andpositive, effective functioning of the cooperative groups. On-task studies that havebeen conducted provide data on student allocated time (Myers, 1991). More6research is needed to quantify the actual student engaged time on task and toexamine the processes of the cooperative learning model, rather than the product ofmethodology, particularly as these processes relate to on-task behavior and positiveattitude formation. Qualitative data are needed to describe what actually occursduring student engaged time and this may be accomplished using single casedesigns.It is within this framework that the researcher has developed the need for the study.The research problem is one of determining the effects that cooperative learninghas in increasing on-task behavior and positive attitudes toward learning. Theexperimental or independent variable will be cooperative learning. The dependentvariable will be the behavior exhibited when this goal structure is used. Theresearch hypotheses are:1. Young adolescents who engage in a cooperative learning goal structureincrease on-task behavior.2. Young adolescents who engage in a cooperative learning goal structureexhibit a more positive attitude toward learning and school.Definition Of TermsYoung Adolescents: Students entering or reaching the age of maturity. For thisstudy the students are in Grade 6, ages 10 years 3 months to 12 years 5 months.These students may also be referred to as "transescents".Goal or Task Structure: A framework of methodology used by teachers thatspecifies the way in which students will interact with each other and the teacher7during instructional sessions. Common goal structures are individualistic,competitive, and cooperative.Cooperative Learning: The instructional use of small groups so that students areable to maximize their own and others' learning. For the purpose of this study, aconceptual approach based on the Johnsons' model (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec,1990) will be used.On-Task Behavior: Actions that indicate a student is committed to entering intoand completing any given assigned task. Such actions include:* oral discussion: discussing aspects of schoolwork with peers or teacher* written work: reading or writing in assigned task area, individual or groupwork* aural awareness: active listening to peers or teacher; eye contact; face-to-face discussion; positive body language such as leaning toward the groupand acknowledging speaker with positive facial expressions or head andhand movementsOff-Task or Disruptive Behavior: Actions in a class setting that prevent the teacherfrom teaching and the learner from learning. Such actions include:* social: off-topic chatting with peers; moving about the classroom needlessly;engaging others in play* withdrawal: detached, out of contact with people or task; daydreaming;engaging self in play8Limitations Of The StudyGeneralizability is limited because of the small sample and particularly because ofthe case study design. The Sample did impose a limitation as it may not have beenrepresentative of the greater population of young adolescents. The small navailable to the researcher may have had a greater variance in pre- and posttestresults than may have occurred with results of a larger sample. It was necessary tolimit case studies to six in order to fully document specific behaviors. However, thesix case studies represented equal gender and ability selection and indicated themulticultural composition of the sample.Maturation could have been a factor as the group became more adept at usingcooperative skills as the study progressed. However, the purpose of the study was toimprove cooperative skills in order to assess their effect on the on-task behavior andattitudes of the subjects. The students were compared only to themselves and thestudy lasted only four months. The rotational observational schedule preventedstudent fatigue from posing a threat.Teacher effect and instrumentation were taken into consideration since theresearcher taught the class and became more proficient in observation of skills asthe study progressed. Using the same methods for observation and verification byan outside observer provided a check on instrumentation change and theresearcher's observations.The students were aware of a study being completed as parental permission wassought. The Hawthorne Effect was controlled as the activities in which the studentswere engaged were daily activities normally used in the classroom. The use of9several instruments in order to gain insight about the purposeful samples may haveposed a threat to validity by sensitizing students to the study. However, the timespan between the administration of these instruments for pre- and posttests and thenature of these instruments (attitude survey, motivation test, journal writing) did notindicate to the students that on-task behavior was being observed.In summary, the design was limited to analyzing on-task behavior and attitudesresulting from the application of the cooperative model. The factors of academicability and gender were studied. Selected students' personalities in relation to theiron-task behavior and the students' motivation toward school learning may suggestquestions for further studies.SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROPOSED RESEARCHThe importance of research in this area is grounded in the theories and philosophyof educational change proposed in the policy paper, Year 2000: A Curriculum AndAssessment Framework For The Future. The Intermediate Program to beimplemented in British Columbia stresses the importance of employing variedinstructional methodology and in particular, providing new basics for learners--communicating, problem solving, and decision making. Students must also develop"interpersonal skills and be able to work cooperatively with others" (Ministry OfEducation, 1990, p.6).The young adolescent is social by nature and influenced greatly by peer groupnorms. If the educator is to maximize learning in the classroom the adolescent'sneeds must be met. However, the teacher must also be convinced that students ingroup settings are really working. Data collected in this study provided further1 0evidence of time-on-task and its effects on learning. Since students of various abilityhad been selected for study, the research provided insight as to which types ofstudents function best using the cooperative model. The attitude survey, motivationscale, and descriptions from learning logs presented interesting information fordocumenting case studies about young adolescents learning in this goal structure.The students have been active participants in their learning and the outcomes of thisstudy will provide empirical data for this philosophy mandated by the Year 2000.11CHAPTER TWOREVIEW OF THE LITERATUREMajor problems in educating young adolescents are identifying the specific needs ofthe population, determining their behavioral norms, and finding varied and effectiveinstructional methodology to meet those needs. Educators may choose from threedifferent goal structures or strategies: individualistic, one in which students seek toaccomplish a goal or task independent of others; competitive, in which students seekto succeed at the expense of others; or cooperative, a framework for studentsworking together to help each other attain a goal that is beneficial to all members ofthe group (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1990; Schmuck & Schmuck, 1988).Competitive and individualistic goal structures have dominated schools, despite along history of cooperative learning in the classrooms (Myers, 1991). However, inthe last decade, cooperative learning has become more widespread as a number ofcooperative methods have been developed and researchers and leaders in the fieldhave proclaimed its many virtues (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Johnson et al, 1990;Slavin, 1983a; Solomon, Battistich, & Delucchi, 1990). Considerable researchconducted in the field has synthesized and organized the effects of cooperativelearning (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Morton, 1991; Slavin 1981, 1983a, 1990a). Inthis research cooperative learning has been found to produce a plethora of positiveoutcomes. The majority of research studies have focused on academic achievement,comparing the effects of cooperative learning to those of traditionally taughtclassrooms and these studies found cooperative learning to be generally as effectivewith all types of students regardless of socioeconomic status, ability level, or ethnicbackground (Slavin, 1990b, 1991a; Margolis, McCabe, & Swartz, 1990; Johnson etal, 1990). While these studies have focused on academic achievement, gains in the12affective dimensions have been cited but have often been viewed as additionaloutcomes or secondary benefits. Positive intergroup relations such as increasedacceptance and support for peers, enhancement of self-esteem, extended acceptanceof mainstreamed students, attending to task, and more positive interracial andinterethnic relations are examples of other outcomes that have been realized(Graves, 1990; Johnson, 1981; Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Madden & Slavin, 1983;Phoenix, 1992; Slavin, 1983a).However, while achievement results and affective gains have been well documented,relatively few studies have analyzed on-task behavior and attitudes toward learningas variables in themselves, but it may be these variables that are most effective foradolescent learning. Not only the quantity of time spent on task, but the quality ofstudent engaged time may be the effective predictor of positive learning behavior.If students are motivated to engage in and remain focused on task, then academicachievement and positive group norms will be enhanced. Therefore, research isneeded on the group processes of cooperative learning and how these processesaffect student interaction rather than more research on the product of methodology(Mandel, 1991).This review of the literature presents an overview of research in cooperativelearning. The first part examines various approaches and perspectives on this goalstructure. An analysis of cooperative learning and its effect on young adolescents asa social process of learning is discussed in the second section. Specific research as itapplies to time on task behavior in the framework of cooperative learning ispresented in the third section. The survey of the literature raises a number of issuesthat are relevant to the education of young adolescents, and in particular, toinstruction that employs the cooperative learning goal structure.13Approaches To Cooperative LearningCooperative learning refers to some 20 different ways in which students worktogether to maximize their own and each others' learning. Today, there are twomajor approaches training teachers in this cooperative learning methodology: theDirect Approach and the Conceptual Approach.Direct Approach. The Direct Approach, using specific structures for teamlearning, was researched by the Johns Hopkins Group. In this approach tocooperative learning the interaction of individuals is highly structured in a content-free framework to form predictable outcomes. Prescribed behavior is expected ateach step of the structures. Specific structures, when combined with content, allowfor systematic design of cooperative learning lessons (Kagan, 1992). There areseveral dozen structures that can be employed from a simple pairing and sharingactivity to more complicated curriculum packages. One of the most common andeasily facilitated structures is Aronson's Jigsaw, used primarily for content learning(Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, & Snaap, 1978). In the Jigsaw content to belearned is divided equally among group members. Students are expected to learntheir assigned part and be prepared to teach it to their group, thus ensuring masteryfor all. A more complicated structure for cooperative research and inquiry ofspecific topics was developed by the Sharans (1976). The newest structure,Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition, researched by Stevens et al(Slavin, 1991a), also followed a direct sequence of structure and has used grouprewards. Both Slavin (1983b) and Kagan (1990) focus on this approach, andDeVries and Edwards, as does Slavin (Morton, 1991; Slavin, 1981, 1990a), use groupgoals to foster learning.14Conceptual Approach. The Conceptual Approach is based on a theoreticalframework that provides principles on how to employ cooperative learning activitiesin any area of the curriculum and focuses more on the cooperative principles,whereby teams meet to analyze and improve their functioning, and on thecooperative processes rather than the specific structure and activities of the groups.These processes include getting to know and trust each other, communicatingaccurately and effectively, accepting and supporting one another, and resolvingconflict constructively (Johnson & Johnson. 1990). Leaders in this field areElizabeth Cohen (1986) and the Johnsons (1986, 1987). Cohen believes thatmethods that are too specific pose difficulties when teachers and students encounterexceptions to the "rules" and that a firm grasp of theoretical knowledge is essentialfor successful implementation of a cooperative goal structure (Strother, 1990). TheJohnsons have suggested that their Conceptual Approach subsumes other structuresas the five essential elements of cooperative learning are present. They believe thatthese elements: positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive interaction,individual accountability, interpersonal and small group skills, and group processing,once mastered, can be generalized to any classroom situation (Johnson et al, 1990).Regardless of the approach, of the many studies reviewed by Slavin (1990a) and themeta-analyses conducted by the Johnsons and colleagues (Johnson et al, 1981), aconsensus can be reached about the positive effects of cooperative learning onachievement and productivity, provided the essential elements of positiveinterdependence and individual accountability are met (Slavin 1990a).15Perspectives On Cooperative LearningThe development of the Direct and Conceptual approaches to cooperative learningmay be viewed from historical and theoretical perspectives. These perspectivespose implications for the development of young adolescents' attitudes and taskbehavior.Historical PerspectivesDuring the 1800's, the Common School Movement in the United States fosteredcooperation among students. In Canada, Alberta's Enterprise Approach (1920's)and the Project Approach in other provinces emphasized cooperation, activelearning, and responsibility (Morton, 1991). Foremost in the field of earlycooperative learning research was John Dewey who, at the turn of the century,promoted democratic procedures in the classroom (Miller & Seller, 1990). Dewey'swork provided the philosophical underpinnings of the inquiry approach tocurriculum His school at the University of Chicago emphasized cooperativeinteraction between students. Dewey's position on education was stated in his"Pedagogic Creed" (1897; Miller & Seller, 1990), whereby he identified the need forthe social process of learning.Following Dewey, small scale laboratory research on cooperative learning wasconducted in the 1920's (Johnson & Johnson, 1974; Slavin, 1977, 1991a). Twentyyears later, Morton Deutch identified the three goal structures that could be used inclassrooms: cooperative, competitive, and individualistic, and proposed a theory ofcooperation and competition which served as a foundation of cooperative learning16(Johnson et al, 1990). This model formed the basis for the Johnsons' ConceptualApproach to cooperative learning.By 1970, specific research on the practical application of cooperative learning hadbegun as four independent groups of researchers, one in Israel and three in theUnited States, simultaneously explored the effects of the cooperative goal structure.Although the specific cooperative learning methodologies for these groups weredifferent, all four research teams had identified similar components: heterogeneousability groupings; mixed gender; and mixed racial composition (Slavin, 1991a). Theresults of these early studies focused on academic achievement.Slavin (1981, 1991a) synthesized cooperative learning research of 70 high qualitystudies in both elementary and secondary schools. He found that 67 of these studiesmeasured student achievement in cooperative classrooms compared to studentachievement in traditional classrooms. Forty-one of the 67 studies (61%) foundhigher achievement in cooperative classes; 25 of the 67 studies reported equalresults in cooperative and traditional classes; and one study reported superiorresults in the traditional goal structure. These results were reported in all schoolsubjects. Research on the Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition(CIRC) model found positive achievement gains as measured by standardizedreading tests (Madden, Stevens, & Slavin, 1986). However, relatively few studiesbetween 1930 and 1980 examined the impact of peer relationships on learning(Johnson and Johnson, 1981) and only in the last decade have outcomes other thanachievement been acknowledged in specific research on cooperative learning(Mandel, 1991; Margolis et al, 1990; Slavin, 1991a; Webb, 1989). Examples of suchresearch included studies on students giving and receiving explanations (Webb,1985; Webb & Kenderski, 1987) and studies on the effects of helping behavior17(Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1989). Studies which examined the social context of groupinteractions were conducted by Croniger (1991) and Cohen (1986; 1990). Thesestudies suggested that more data are needed in the affective dimensions ofcooperative learning.Theoretical PerspectivesResearch on both the Direct and Conceptual Approaches to cooperative learninghas been conducted from two major theoretical perspectives: Developmental andMotivational (Slavin, 1987a). Both theories have considerable implications forfurther studies of young adolescent task behavior and attitudes toward learning.Developmental Perspective.  The developmental perspective believes thattask-focused interaction increases mastery of critical concepts and skills.Developmentalists, such as Vygotsky, have acknowledged that students learn fromeach other because they are working in their proximal zones of development(Slavin, 1987b). Vygotsky described these zones as the distance between actualdevelopmental levels, as determined by individual problem solving, and potentialdevelopment, as determined by problem solving assisted by more capable adults orpeers. Piaget (Santrock, 1990; Slavin, 1987b) similarly suggested that thedevelopmental stages of students' cognitive growth must be considered whenstructuring learning tasks and that certain knowledge such as language, values, andrules can only be learned in social situations. Based on these theories, researchershave suggested that students learn from each other because any cognitive conflictand faulty reasoning arising from discussion will be exposed and correctunderstanding will emerge (Margolis et al, 1990; Slavin, 1987b). Slavin also cited18several studies that found the small difference in cognitive levels between studentswas actually conducive to cognitive growth.According to the Developmental perspective, the effects of cooperative goalstructure on learning are due to students working together to present informationand to listen to others explanation and viewpoints. Damon as reported by Slavin(1987b) incorporated the developmental theories of Piaget and Vygotsky to proposea conceptual framework for peer interaction. Other researchers focused on thecognitive restructuring brought about by the helping behavior of students.Webb and Kenderski (1987) replicated findings related to student interaction andlearning in order to clarify the relationships among student and group characteristicsin small group and whole class settings. They found a positive relationship onachievement between giving and receiving explanations. Their studies focused onacademic ability and determined that high, medium, and low ability studentsperformed equally as well in heterogeneous and homogeneous groupings. However,they did find that some heterogeneous groups were more advantageous to cognitiverestructuring than were others. The medium-ability student tended to be left out ofgiving and receiving explanations in high-medium-low groups, and performed muchbetter in medium-high and medium-low groups. Their studies indicated a need forviewing the relative ability within the group rather than the absolute ability whenstudying student interaction and learning.Further research completed by Webb (1989) in a meta-analysis of studies conductedon students, grades two to nine, found that cooperative small group problem solvingand peer interaction influenced student learning and there was evidence of at least apartial correlation between behavior and achievement (controlling for ability).19According to Webb, this correlation supported the interpretation that behaviorinfluenced learning, rather than seeing behavior as a function of achievement level.This is particularly relevant when studying on-task behavior in the framework of thecooperative goal structure.Research conducted by Hertz-Lazarowitz (1989) on peer interaction and helpingbehavior focused on the prosocial traditions of Vygotsky in which students grow intointellectual life. In this research Hertz-Lazarorwitz acknowledged that cooperationand helping behaviors are core behaviors for positive interaction. Hertz-Lazarowitz(1989) identified and documented helping behavior, one student responding toanother's needs, as an adjunct to cooperative behavior, on-task interaction amongpupils working together. In her studies she observed that 70% of helping behaviorwas student initiated while 30% was teacher initiated. In essence, students began totake on a leadership role. Their task behavior was prompted from within. She didfind, however, that cooperative tasks that required students to work togetherresulted in higher levels of elaboration than did tasks that simply required studentsto pool resources and share materials. She suggested that the design of the task wasan important variable and that students must be encouraged to cooperate aboutprocess not just products. Her findings validated the Johnsons' approach to aConceptual model, whereby process and cooperative skills must be taught.Motivational Perspective. Whereas the developmental perspective focuseson the quality of interaction among students, the motivational perspective focuseson the group reward goal structure. Researchers in this field suggest students incooperative groups may be more motivated if the learning of the group is madeimportant by group rewards based on individual learning performances (Slavin,1983b, 1987b). This initially may appear to be extrinsic motivation, and an extensive20literature review by Brewer, Dunn, & Olszewski (1988) scrutinized the effects ofextrinsic rewards on internal motivation. Their findings suggested that there was aparallel relationship between the effects of rewards and the locus of control of theindividual, determined by perceptions of external constraint and perceptions ofinternal competence. They suggested activities that increase one's perceivedcompetence increase motivation. Sansone (Brewer et al, 1988) found that positivefeedback could enhance intrinsic interest by increasing personal perceivedcompetence. The literature on motivation does not support a direct causal linkbetween extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation, but indicates that varyingdegrees of these types of motivation influence the individual.Another dimension of the motivational perspective focuses on the intrinsic rewardsand motivation of the individual generated by cooperative learning. Researcherssupporting this view propose that involvement in interesting and challengingcooperative activities will foster internal motivation to complete tasks and enhanceacademic development (Hert-Lazarowitz, 1990; Pratt, 1987; Solomon et al, 1990).Glassar (1990) has stated, in his Control Theory, that all human beings are bornwith five basic needs that they must control: survival, love, power, fun, and freedom.According to his findings, schools in the past have coerced students into learning byimposing external controls and adult authority over students' decision-makingpowers. Glassar has suggested that goal structures using cooperative learning satisfystudents' needs to feel important, socialize and have fun, and provide students withpower and freedom to choose their own learning. This enhances intrinsicmotivation. Rosenfeld and Sansone (Myers, 1990) stated that rewards and praisethat inform people of their achievements and worth will boost intrinsic motivationto learn: rewards that seek to control people will diminish motivation. Pratt (1987)21also found that learning and achievement was greater under conditions of intrinsicrather than extrinsic motivation. He suggested that cooperative learningexperiences enhance both academic and social development of students.Harter (1981) has addressed the issue of motivation in the classroom and hassuggested that students' motivation for classroom learning will be determined bytheir intrinsic or extrinsic orientation. Her findings indicated that student'sorientation on five subscales of Challenge, Curiosity, Mastery, Judgement, andInternal Criteria are highly predictive of perceived competence and perceivedcontrol. She suggested that with this knowledge classroom intervention andteaching styles can be used to enhance learning.A more recent study examining the motivational orientation of males and females inthe classroom was conducted by Boggiano (1991). In this study, the motivationalorientations of intermediate grade students were measured on the Harter Scale(1980). It was found that motivational orientations were not distributed equallyacross gender and that females were more extrinsically oriented in the classroom.In essence, intermediate students relied upon adult feedback for motivation.McLean (1992) has acknowledged the developmentalists' perspective that suggestspeer interaction without extrinsic goals or rewards leads to intellectual growth butshe has questioned whether or not the quality of these interactions can be sustainedwithout motivation. Her research has suggested that young students given rewardsin an obvious manner felt that their efforts were due to external forces but thatcooperative learning methods could be structured that were intrinsically interestingto students.22Slavin (1987b) has suggested that, as children proceed to adolescence and the peergroup becomes more important, the degree to which students will apply themselveswill depend on their motivation and, at this stage, they need more incentives to takeacademics seriously. He suggested that the degree to which students applythemselves to learning depends upon their motivation and that cooperative learningenhanced by group rewards may be the motivator needed. Slavin agreed with thefindings of Webb, Kenderski, and Hertz-Lazarorwitz, as did Solomon et al (1990),that the quality of interaction within the group was important and affected students'intrinsic motivation to learn. Since collaborative skills increase in middle childhood(Berndt & Ladd, 1989; Santrock, 1990) the young adolescent may find cooperativetask structures, enhanced by group rewards, the incentive needed to increase time-on-task behavior, thus enhancing achievement.Young Adolescents And Cooperative LearningSocial development in young adolescents is inevitable and a major portion of thissocial experience will take place within an educational setting. Researchers stressthe importance of designing curricula to promote positive interactions amongstudents and suggest that cooperative learning may enhance social development ofyoung adolescents (Epstein, 1990; Leming, 1985; Epstein & Salinas, 1991). Recentreports and research on Middle School education have proposed that curricula bestructured to lessen the mismatch between young adolescents' developmental needsand current educational programs and that active learning, increased participation,and cooperation be essential components of instructional strategies (Becker, 1990;Epstein, 1990; Maclver, 1990;)23With more research on young adolescents completed (Desjarlais & Rackauskas,1986; NASSP, 1987; Santrock, 1990), educators are beginning to realize the uniquenature of students in this age group. They are not elementary school children norare they the more mature high school students. They are in transition. This beingthe case, the format of their education and teacher instruction must also be unique -a combination of the nurturing elementary classroom and the increasedindependent responsibility of the senior high schools. For education of these"transescents" to be effective, educators must have a clear understanding of thedevelopmental stages, attitude formation and the norms that influence patterns ofinterpersonal interaction, thus affecting students' motivation to learn and theirattendance to task.During adolescence students develop increased cognitive competence (Santrock,1990; Slavin, 1987a; Williamson, Swingle, & Sargent, 1982), and based on thetheories of Piaget, their abilities to process information moves from the concrete tothe abstract. Even though cognitive competence increases, Epstein (1990) foundthat achievement in young adolescents decreases and that they need moremotivation to complete academic tasks. Students at this age are engaged in identityseeking and are coping with maturing physical development. The enhancement ofself-esteem and formation of positive attitudes toward self and others must be animportant focus of curricula designed for this age group.Attitudes Toward LearningAttitudes are constructs that may not be directly observed but are most ofteninferred from behavior. The correlation between attitudes and behavior form acomplicated chain of cause and effect which influences students' motivation to learn.24Attitudes are directly related to a person's beliefs (or cognitions held about anobject) and to actions (the behavioral components of an individual). Schoolsaccount for a large share of social, emotional, and attitudinal development, and atcertain stages of adolescent development, can be crucial (Williamson et al, 1982).Since attitudes are learned tendencies to behave positively or negatively towardpersons or situations, they become very dynamic constructs with complicatedcomponents in a school setting, for here the student is constantly modelling,processing, and evaluating information in the presence of others. If students receivepositive feedback about personal competencies then self-esteem is enhanced.Bandura (1982) refers to this as "self-efficacy" and believes that people who have astrong sense of self-efficacy cope better and achieve more than do people who lack asense of their own effectiveness. If students are encouraged to adopt a morepositive attitude then they believe the power to succeed resides within themselves.Dawes (Myers, 1990) found that study after study has shown that people have alimited ability to process information on a cognitive level, particularly socialinformation, without direct teaching and reinforcement. Therefore, if positivesocial/emotional attitudes are to develop, conscious teaching and reteaching isneeded. This may be effected by group reinforcement. Researchers have foundthat cooperative learning enhances students' self-esteem and fosters positiveattitudes toward learning and school (Schultz, 1989; Morton, 1991; Slavin, 1981,1987, 1991a).A study conducted by Borton (1991) investigated a suburban school's attempt tocorrect resegregation in classroom assignments by combining gifted, regulareducation, and bilingual students in a cooperative learning program. The studyexamined the interaction between teacher efficacy and student attitudes on reading.Students were assessed three times throughout the year for reading scores and all25groups showed improvement gains with limited-English-proficient students showingthe greatest gains The findings suggested that student self-esteem was the onlysignificant predictor for reading outcomes. Since teacher-student interaction wasexamined in a Grade 3-4 classroom, further research might suggest student-studentinteraction and its efficacy on attitudes and self-esteem be a focus of study withyoung adolescents.Enhancement of self-esteem affects all levels of student abilities, age, gender, andethnic groups. Research has shown negative expectations abound in the classroomfor low achieving students. McDaniel (1984) has stated that these students areisolated from others, called on less and given fewer clues, often interrupted in theirefforts, and were shown less tolerance and attention than others. Therefore, thesestudents created negative self-fulfilling prophecies that often carried over to adultlife (Leming, 1985; Becker, 1990). Studies conducted by Lyman (1989) andCromwell (1988) found that low achieving students and different racial groups feltpositively about themselves when working cooperatively.Croniger's research (1991) on adolescents found that the social context in whichinstruction takes place affected individual learning, particularly for white femalesand minority students. His study showed that power and status outside schoolaffected the social context of learning, based on what students and teachers broughtto the classroom. Students with poor self-esteem, believing that certain groups ofstudents are more successful than others, developed survival strategies such as poorbehavior and isolation. Croniger recommended that teachers acknowledge thecultural expectations of learning and use cooperative learning techniques to provideequal opportunities for instructional leadership for all students. This view wassupported by Elizabeth Cohen (1986) who found that white students tended to26control classroom activities. They read the status expectations of the broaderclassroom culture, and therefore were able to dominate learning. Cohen also foundthat adolescent boys dominated adolescent girls and suggested that the cooperativemodel, with the teaching of appropriate skills, improved student attitudes andfeelings of self worth.Slavin (1987b) in a review of the humanists' and behaviorist's view of cooperativelearning found that the value of this goal structure lay not so much in the academicgains so widely claimed, but in the effective learning of such variables as positiveattitudes, self-esteem and other affective outcomes (Slavin, 1983a, 1991a), but moreresearch is needed in this area. Although humanists have criticized behavorists forgiving group rewards as incentives for learning, Slavin (1991b) has pointed out thatrewards research has been based on achievement not on direct observation ofchanges in student behavior nor on students' perspectives of the reward taskstructure. Slavin has suggested that much research needs to be done to understandhow cooperative goal structures affect learning and motivation. Additionalqualitative data could enhance the understanding of young adolescent attitudeformation.Student InteractionAccording to Schmuck and Schmuck (1988), classroom norms are sharedexpectations and attitudes about what are appropriate school related proceduresand behaviors. Students rely on group norms to guide them when they are unsure ofthe meanings of complex realities. Normlessness can be viewed as an emotionalcondition of an individual for whom there are few guidelines and shared expectationwith others, a state that can be most unsettling for the adolescent so concerned27about his or her acceptance in the peer group. These underlying group agreementsguide the psychological and behavior processes of the individual and affectperception, cognition, evaluation, and most importantly, classroom behavior.Therefore, it is these norms that exercise influence over the student's involvement inacademic work and the quality of interpersonal relations between class members.Gouldner (Schmuck & Schmuck, 1988) described the importance of the norm ofReciprocity, whereby students give and receive help from others. He stated that thekey to developing this norm lies in increased opportunities for students to spendtime engaging in positive social reinforcement.Frequently, peer group norms may be in opposition to the goals of the school andcounter-productive to growth and achievement. Educators of young adolescentsmust find ways to enhance individuals' self-esteem and foster group normsacceptable to students and staff. Schmuck and Schmuck have suggested thatinstructional goal structures can be viewed as a special kind of classroom norm asthey are shared expectations about the correct way of learning knowledge. Schmuckand Schmuck also suggested that norms are strongly influenced by a positiveclassroom climate encouraging lively intellectual life, and that cooperative goalstructures encouraged such positive behavioral norms. However, as persuasive asnorms are in an educational setting, only a handful of systematic studies have beencompleted on the way in which they function and affect on-task behavior (Schmuck& Schmuck, 1988).A recent study conducted on emerging adolescents by Mandel (1991) investigatedthe inner components of cooperative learning, focusing on teacher and studentinteractions and examined the cooperative learning environment's effect on studentbehavior. Mandel found that student leadership styles and communication patterns28affected cooperative learning groups and that the interactions of students correlatedto their individual leadership styles. He also found that students cooperated to theextent that was expected of them. Mandell has suggested that more research of aspecific nature is needed on cooperative learning as most data results have beenquantitative rather than qualitative in nature. He also suggested that additionalresearch needs to be undertaken on the group process of cooperative learningversus the product of the methodology.Another study conducted by Solomon, Battistich, and Delucchi (1990) investigatedthe interaction processes in cooperative learning groups and the way in which theseinteractions affected attitudes toward school, perceptions of the learningenvironment, intrinsic motivation, and various social values. The researchers foundthat increasing the frequency of interactions only had positive effects when thequality of interaction was high. When the quality of interaction was low, negativeeffects resulted. Students' personal journals corroborated these findings. Theresearch concluded that some students working in groups may not have positiveexperiences and that directly examining student interaction processes will enhancethe understanding of cooperative learning and its effective use in the classroom.Huber and Eppler (1990) also examined student interaction in cooperative learninggroups and used both observational and self-reporting measures. They found thatstudents who incorporated social skills and team-building exercises improved thequality of their interactions and group functioning over time. The combination ofobservation and self-reporting measures provided rich data from which to evaluatecooperative processes.29Johnson (1981) has stated that student-student interaction, often a neglectedvariable in education has power and coercion to motivate students to comply withclassroom norms and role definitions. His research found that relatively few studiescompleted between the 1930's and the 1980's have examined the impact of peerrelations within instructional settings and the effect of this behavior as the majorfocus on achievement, socialization, and development. In addition to theachievement and productivity results of cooperative learning studies (Johnson,Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981), Johnson reported that cooperativelearning experiences have been found to promote affective perspective taking suchas liking for one another, mutual concern, positive attitudes toward peers,friendliness, and attentiveness. Further research conducted by the Johnsons (1990)emphasized the need to teach social skills essential to function together for theseskills are as important as academic content and have both short and long term goals.The Johnsons have suggested that teaching interpersonal skills fosters greaterretention, critical thinking and learning, and that students exhibiting these skills aremore employable in the future. Although long and short term outcomes of theseskills were analyzed, on-task behavior using social skills was not well documented.Educators have speculated whether more emphasis should be placed oninterpersonal functions or task related activities, and if these dimensions of theadolescent education are dependent upon each other. Research documenting thesocial skills as they are used in specific task behavior would add to this dimension ofcooperative learning research.Time On TaskAn important factor affecting discipline in the classroom, particularly for youngadolescents, is the amount of time spent on task. Time-on-task behavior is a30physical manifestation of learning, and to the classroom teacher a more immediateindicator of learning. Research on students' time spent on task flourished in the1970's, but most of these studies viewed the solitary aspect of students' time on task(Hertz-Lararowitz, 1990). Myers (1990), in his review of curriculum time studies,found consensus among researchers that time-on-task is an essential variable ininstruction and effective learning. All studies stressed the importance of teachers'assessment of on-task behavior. However, historically, time on task and teacherreports of time were based on allocated-study time rather than student-engagedtime. This was particularly evident during these early studies.Myers (1990), in an historical review of time studies, reported that time assessed inthe Beginning Teacher Evaluation Study (BTES) of the late seventies was actuallybased on teacher reports rather than actual observed student time on task. Otherstudies conducted during this period by Brophy and Evertson, Harris, and Roseshine(Myers, 1990) viewed student-engaged time as a result of the effective role of theteacher-manager. Myers (1990) also reported studies by Harris and Yinger whogave support to this view that on-task behavior could be a reliable measure ofteacher effectiveness. In the second phase of the BTES study, Myers (1990) statedthat Kounin and associates found that some teacher behaviors, other thandisciplinary techniques, promoted on-task behavior. Kounin found that studentwork involvement became an important variable and that student engaged ratesmay vary according to the mode of instruction. These studies have suggested thatteachers need to make decisions that facilitate more meaningful time-on-task as thistime is a major determinant of the amount of content and processes learned. Myershas suggested that quantitative data on allocated time studies lacked the qualitativedata of descriptive activities. He has suggested that quantitative data is needed forthe percentage of engaged time on task, but that qualitative data must describe what31actually occurs during that engaged time. Myers felt that this could be accomplishedby teachers conducting extensive research within their own classrooms.Salend and Sonnenschein (1989) conducted a study of on-task behavior ofemotionally disturbed adolescents in which they used direct observation measures ofsingle case studies and administered a client satisfaction questionnaire. Studentsreceived cooperative learning treatment based on the Johnsons' Learning TogetherModel (1986). Time on task was measured in whole intervals as the researchers feltthat behavior needed to be sustained in order to be registered as on task.Cooperative behaviors were recorded by event. The researchers found thatcooperative learning was an effective tool for promoting on-task and cooperativebehaviors for these adolescents. Although on-task behaviors were maintained aftertreatment, increased socialization and cooperative behaviors returned to baselinelevels. Additional findings of client satisfaction reported 89% of students preferredcooperative learning structures. These researchers have recommended that furtherstudy of on-task behavior be conducted using single case designs. Research,employing this design, on young adolescents could add to the body of literature ontime studies.Another study conducted by Phoenix (1992) examined the impact of cooperativelearning on classroom discipline in the elementary schools. Data were collected byteacher-researcher and interrater observers of specified off-task behaviors. Theresearcher found that there were fewer off-task problem behaviors in thecooperative classroom than in the non-cooperative classroom, and since off-taskbehavior is a competing behavior to on-task behavior (Slavin, 1981, 1991a),concluded that students instructed in the cooperative goal structure spent more time32on task. Phoenix also concluded that not enough studies actually measured time ontask.Perhaps the most extensive research of on-task studies was conducted and compiledby Hertz-Lazarowitz (1990) who compared student behavior in three types ofclassrooms: traditional, non-traditional but non-cooperative; and cooperative. Inone study (1984) of 30 high school traditional classes, the researcher found thatteacher centrality reduced on-task behavior and increased interactive off-taskbehavior. Another study of adolescents compared individual mastery and Jigsawinvestigation. The Jigsaw is a strategy, whereby students individually mastersections of material, then piece their individual learning together for total groupknowledge of a subject. On-task behavior and retention of on-task behavior overtime were dependent variables. Results indicated increase and retention of on-taskbehavior for the Jigsaw investigative model.Based on these studies, Hertz-Lazarowitz developed an integrative model of theclassroom and a taxonomy for studying student behavior. Research was conductedin both Israeli and American schools. Results of this research indicated thatlearning task structures and teacher behavior were the major determinants inshaping student behaviors. The researcher found that in non-cooperativeclassrooms on-task solitary behavior was observed 50-75% of the time, and that thistype of on-task behavior decreased with age. On-task interactive behaviors, such asgiving and receiving help, were of short duration and usually performed"underground". In total, the researcher found that one-third of all behaviors wereinteractive and 50% of those were off-task. More on-task interactive behavior wasfound in cooperative classrooms. Hertz-Lazarowitz has suggested that studentsengaged in interactive behavior because they needed peer interaction for cognitive33and social development, and she has recommended the inclusion of cooperativelearning as part of daily classroom instruction.In essence, research has indicated that time on task is an important variable instudent behavior and achievement and teachers' perceptions of discipline problems,but that further research is needed to specifically measure on-task behavior incooperative learning structures rather than view on-task behavior as an additionaloutcome of cooperative learning instruction.Research SummaryRegardless of the method or structure used, most of the studies conducted in thefield of cooperative learning have focused on academic achievement. Whilereporting their findings, researchers have stated that many additional outcomes maybe gained in the affective and interpersonal domains (Slavin, 1990, 1991) but theseoutcomes have not been the focus of most studies. Positive attitudes, increased self-esteem, respect for others, and liking school were such examples. Studentsexhibited trust and support, and found other ways to help each other (Sharan et al1984). The literature also stated that there was a greater acceptance ofmainstreaming special needs students and racial integration. Other researchershave found cooperative learning increased altruistic behavior in young adolescents(Margolis et al, 1990) and increased time-on-task with students often initiating theirown tasks for completion (Prescott, 1990). If these outcomes are beneficial tostudent learning and achievement, then empirical data in both quantitative andqualitative form are needed to determine the conditions which foster theseoutcomes.34For the young adolescent, further research has suggested that, as students activelyengaged in cooperative goal structures, their attitude toward learning also changed(Epstein, 1991). As they became more responsive to the group's learning, anawareness of personal competencies was developed and this, in turn, resulted ingreater self-esteem of the individual. This positive perception fostered intrinsicmotivation and did not rely on the power and coercion of the teacher to motivatestudents to comply to classroom norms and role definitions (Johnson, 1981).Indeed, students who developed these positive attitudes and greater self-esteembecame more intrinsically motivated to direct their own learning (Margolis et al,1990; Schultz, 1990).In conclusion, it appears that motivating the young adolescent to complete taskfunctions in the classroom may be contingent on interpersonal functions and theacceptance of group norms. As relationships become more positive, increases maybe expected in task commitment, success, and productivity. While achievementresults have been well documented in the cooperative learning models, on-taskbehavior has only been acknowledged as a secondary benefit. But it may be thisbenefit that is most advantageous to effective learning of young adolescents. If thereal product of effective learning is learning behavior, then it is not the quantity oftime spent in the classroom, but the quality of student engaged time and the studentbehavior exhibited during this time that should be a more immediate indicator oflearning (Myers, 1990). If students through their own volition are choosing to be ontask, not only is academic achievement enhanced, but also positive group norms areencouraged and a more pleasant classroom atmosphere results. If it is suggestedthat extended experiences with cooperative learning increases the ability to worktogether, then on-task behavior must be examined more closely. At this point more35research is needed to obtain empirical data observing the qualitative aspect of thison-task behavior.36CHAPTER THREEMETHODA quasi-experimental study was conducted on a sample of 27 emerging adolescents.Embedded in this study was a detailed case study of six individuals. The purpose ofthis study was to determine the effects that cooperative learning had in encouragingthe on-task behavior and positive attitudes toward learning of young adolescents.The study investigated the hypotheses that:1. Young adolescents who engage in a cooperative learning goal structureincrease on-task behavior.2. Young adolescents who engage in a cooperative learning goal structureexhibit a more positive attitude toward learning and school.All subjects in the sample completed pre- and posttests as well as numerousinformal measures to determine their motivation for learning and to indicateattitudes toward school. In addition, the 6 students selected for case studies wereclosely observed for time-on-task behavior.Subjects and SiteThe research was conducted in an elementary school in West Vancouver. The totalschool population was approximately 280 students, Primary 1 (Kindergarten) toGrade 6 inclusive. The school is located in an upper socioeconomic area.Approximately 50% of the school's clientele is drawn from the immediate catchmentarea. Other students come from outlying areas and surrounding districts in order toqualify for entrance into a particular high school. About 30% of the students speakEnglish as a second language and school policy dictates that they be integrated37immediately into classrooms. There appears to be high parental expectations forthese students to achieve academically. The school also has several special needsstudents mainstreamed into the regular classroom.SampleThe subjects of this research were Grade 6 students, heterogeneously grouped intoclasses by the administration at the beginning of the school year. The research wasconducted in one of these classes in which the researcher was the teacher. At theonset of the year the class consisted of 28 students, 14 boys and 14 girls. Shortlyafter the research began, one boy moved to another school district and toward theconclusion of the study another girl transferred into the class. The students rangedin age from 10 years 3 months to 12 years 5 months at the beginning of the study.The class, like the rest of the school, had a high ethnic component. Fourteenstudents spoke English as a second language (E.S.L.) or heard another languagespoken within their homes. Three of these students spoke very limited English anddid not respond orally within the classroom.Two Special Needs students were mainstreamed into this class. One boy exhibitedautistic features and had mild brain dysfunctions including functional centrallanguage disability. The other student was physically handicapped with cerebralpalsy and was non-ambulatory. Both students were emotionally immature andlearning delayed. These students shared a teacher assistant permanently assigned tothem.38Case Study Subject SelectionStratified random sampling was used to select 6 subjects for the case studies. Allstudents' names were placed in three groups according to academic ability: high,medium, and low. Since most of the research was conducted in the area ofLanguage Arts, the Canadian Achievement Test, Level 15, Form A,(CTC/McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1982) scores for Total Reading and Total Languagewere used to categorize students into ability groups. This test is reported to be validand reliable. Specific coefficients for each section of this test (Reading .72;Language .70; Total Battery .78) are reported in the technical bulletin of TheCanadian Achievement Test (CTC/McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1983). Students' scoreswere charted and ranked from high to low in several areas: grade equivalencies,national stanines and percentiles, as well as local stanines and percentiles. Thenational stanines and percentile scores were analyzed and these scores were used toclassify students. With the exception of four students' scores in Reading and fivestudents' scores in Language, all students' scores fell above the 62nd percentile andwithin the 6th to 9th stanines. Because most scores fell at or above the 6th stanine,the local stanine scores and percentile ranks were then analyzed. Based on thisanalysis, students were grouped as follows: high ability, 7th - 8th stanine; mediumability, 5th - 6th stanine; low ability, 1st - 4th stanine. If there was a discrepancy ingroup placement between the students' ranking in Reading and Language scores,the Total Battery stanine and percentile was used as a further guide for abilitygrouping. At this point, teacher opinion was used to confirm ability groupings,particularly in the case of English As Second Language students whose scores didnot register in some areas of the  Canadian Achievement Test. Nine students wereplaced in each of the three ability groups: four males and five females in the high39ability group; five males and four females in the medium ability group; and fivemales and four females in the low ability group.From each ability group, 2 students were randomly selected. The first male and thefirst female chosen from each group were used for close observation and case study.Table 1 depicts the  Canadian Achievement Test scores of the students selected forcase study. It should be noted that the local stanine scores for the low abilitystudents selected for case study were considered low in relation to the scores for thisclass but would be considered average scores for stanine groupings.The informants selected reflected the class composition. Three boys and 3 girlswere chosen, ages 10 years 3 months to 11 years 4 months (at the beginning of thestudy). Two of these students heard another language spoken in the home andanother student spoke English as a second language.It should be noted that the two special needs students, although classified in abilitygroups for cooperative learning instruction, were treated as outlying students andnot included in the list of names for stratified selection and case studies. In part, theresults of such inclusion would indicate regression to the norm, but other factors hadto be considered. Since these students often required adult assistance, group workand the interaction of students could be affected. Many other professionals wereinvolved with these students, either in or out of the classroom, and schoolattendance could be sporadic, thus affecting consistent observation results.40Table 1Canadian Achievement Test Scores Of Students Selected For Case StudyStudentsScores A (male) B (female) C (male) D (female) E (male) F (female)ReadingNP^90 75 72 69 62 69NS^8 6 6 6 6 6LP^70 56 37 34 27 34LS^6 5 4 4 4 4LanguageNP^93 97 66 81 70 62NS^8 9 6 7 6 6LP^80 92 41 59 46 36LS^7 8 5 5 5 4Total BatteryNP^99 96 78 89 66 57NS^9 9 7 7 6 5LP^89 87 50 68 33 26LS^7 7 5 6 4 4NP = national %ile NS = national stanineLP = local %ile^LS = local stanine41DesignThe study was a quasi-experimental design involving two components: a modifiedversion of a Time Samples Design and a Pre- Posttest Design. Both componentswere complimented with informal ethnographic data. In testing Hypothesis 1, thatyoung adolescents who engage in a cooperative learning goal structure increase on-task behavior, the nonequivalent Time Samples Design was used (Figure 1).Figure 1NONEQUIVALENT TIME SAMPLES DESIGNTreatmentGroup Preobservations^ PostobservationsE^0 0 0 0 X^X10 X20 X30 X40 ...TimeIn testing hypothesis 2, that young adolescents who engage in a cooperative learninggoal structure exhibit a more positive attitude toward learning and school, the Pre-Posttest Design was used (Figure 2). This design may have limitations because ofthe threats of history, selection of students, instrumentation, and maturation. Theresearcher attempted to validate the design by providing detailed description ofthese aforementioned factors. Mortality was controlled as the student who left wasnot part of the study. Since the study lasted only four months maturation wascontrolled.42Figure 2PRE 1 EST POSTTEST DESIGNGroup^Pretest^Treatment^PosttestE^0 X 0TimeThe study also involved two dimensions: a whole class study and 6 subjects selectedfor individual case studies (3 male and 3 female). Within the case studies threelevels of academic ability were represented. These dimensions are illustrated inFigure 3Figure 3DESIGN DIMENSIONS1. Class2. Case Studieshigh^medium^low^abilityM F^M F^M F^genderIn this design, the independent variables are cooperative learning, gender, and thethree levels of ability: high, medium, and low. The dependent variables aremeasured on-task behavior and attitude change.43RESEARCH DESIGNWhole Class^Case StudyTime SamplePre-PosttestInformal*Within this framework, the study was conducted on the whole class and on theindividuals selected for case studies. Figure 4 incorporates the components and thedimensions of the design.Figure 4Data CollectionThe data collection was divided into two phases: Baseline and Intervention. Duringboth phases data were collected and analyzed by the researcher who was also theclassroom teacher. Interrater reliability was ensured by additional observations andtraining of the teacher's assistant who was a constant and natural presence in theclassroom. Observations were made one hour in the morning during the integratedLanguage Arts program.The Educational SettingThe research took place in a regular-sized classroom. Students sat at individualdesks in chairs, both of which could be moved about according to the task at hand.The teacher's conference/work area was at the back of the room along with benches44arranged for a meeting area. Two additional work tables were placed about theperimeter of the room, one of which was turned into a computer center for thespecial needs student. This student also had a larger work/desk to accommodatethe wheelchair. At the beginning of the study students sat in rows, then gradually,moved into quads (groups of four desks facing each other). Students were also freeto move to the meeting area or work tables for group activities or for quietindependent reading.The teacher researcher. This researcher was a full time classroom teacherwho has had twenty years experience teaching in the elementary school. Most of theexperience has been at the intermediate level, grades three through seven. Thisresearcher was very comfortable working with and having other adults in theclassroom as she had, in the past, engaged in job-sharing.Interrater reliability. The teacher assistant was very familiar with theresearcher's teaching style and classroom expectations as the assistant hadpreviously worked with the researcher for three consecutive years. This rater wastrained to identify on-task behavior as defined by the researcher. Initially, theinterrater was prompted to identify students who displayed specific off-task ordisruptive behavior. This behavior included social actions such as off-topic chatting,moving about the classroom needlessly, and engaging others in play. Less disruptivebut inappropriate off-task behavior was identified as negative body language orstudent withdrawal from task. In this case, students might be daydreaming, be outof contact with people or task, or be engaging in self-play. The interrater'sidentification of off-task behavior was discussed with the researcher andconfirmation made. The same procedure was applied to identification of on-taskbehavior. The interrater was encouraged to look for students exhibiting actions that45showed a commitment to entering into and completing a given assignment. Thesestudent actions included oral discussion, reading or writing in an assigned task area,aural awareness of teacher and peers, and positive body language.Once the on-task behavior could be identified, the interrater was encouraged tomove freely about the room as would the teacher. The Time On Task datacollection instrument designed for this study (see Appendix A) was then explainedto the interrater. The teacher prepared the data sheet for the interrater, identifyingspecific students to be observed through three time frames. These time frames werewritten on the data collection sheet in order that the interrater and researcher couldcoordinate observation times.The teacher observer acted as an additional observer for 30% of the observationsessions and participated in follow up discussions with the researcher. Agreementbetween the interrater and researcher of on-task behavior was 80%. It was agreedthat a question mark would be used and the behavior described if the interratercould not determine specifically whether behavior was on- or off-task. Thisoccurred in 8% of the observations coordinated by the interrater and theteacher/researcher. In those cases, the teacher often confirmed the behaviorthrough discussion with the particular student observed and with the group involved.The teacher usually found the students to be quite forthcoming about theirinvolvement in the activities.InstrumentationThe study was divided into two phases: Baseline and Intervention, and in bothphases, formal and informal measures of data collection were used. The formal46instrument to measure motivation was given to the class as a pretest in the BaselinePhase and as a posttest in the Intervention Phase. Statistical analysis (discussedunder the section Data Analysis) was applied to this instrumentation and also to thedata collected for time on task. Informal measures were also used to assessattitudes toward learning and school. Much of this data collection was for casestudy purposes and included questionnaires, student writings and representations,and teacher logs. The results of these measures would not be statistically analyzed,but used in a descriptive manner.Time on task. The researcher designed a data collection grid to be used forobservation of time-on-task behavior and to record anecdotal comments made byboth students and teacher (Appendix A). This device allowed the observer torecord selected students' behavior on a rotational basis during three time frames ofthe working period: beginning, middle, and end. The second page was used torecord more detailed information about the assigned task, the students, and theresearcher's questions.Motivation for learning. The  Scale Of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic OrientationIn The Classroom (Harter, University of Denver, Colorado Seminary, 1980) wasadministered as a pre- and posttest to the whole sample (Appendix C). Individualstudent profiles were plotted for the selected case studies on the components of thescale to determine whether students were intrinsically oriented or extrinsicallyoriented in the classroom. The subscale components were Challenge -- preferencefor hard work versus preference for easy work; Curiosity -- interest in the task versuscompleting the task for teacher approval or grades; Mastery -- preference forfiguring out problems versus relying on guidance from the teacher; Judgement --feeling capable of making judgements independently versus depending primarily on47teacher's opinions; and Criteria -- personal knowledge of success versus dependencyupon external sources of evaluation. This scale reports to have factorial validityacross its five dimensions between .46 and .53. The reliability of each subscaleassessed by employing the reliability coefficient (Kuder-Richardson Formula 20)yielded ranges from .78 to .84, .68 to .82, .70 to .78, .72 to .81, and .75 to .83 forChallenge, Independent Mastery, Curiosity, Judgement, and Criteria subscalesrespectively.Attitude toward learning and toward school. A Likert-style questionnairedeveloped for this study (Appendix D) was administered to all students according tothe pre and posttest design. The profiles of students selected for case studies wereplotted. The questionnaire was designed to identify students' opinions about groupwork and students' preference of work situations. Additional information wasgathered for case study purposes from informal affective measures such as studentswriting letters to themselves, writing about their class, self assessment reporting, andstudent learning logs. Students also represented their feelings about subjects andschool by illustrating faces in blank circles and explaining their illustrations to theteacher. These informal measures were taken at least twice throughout the study.The whole class of students was also given a questionnaire called The Story(Appendix E) based on a hypothetical story about their school. This questionnaireis of criterion referenced construction from the Instructional Objectives Exchange(Instructional Objectives, 1972). The purpose of this questionnaire was to detect thestatus of an individual to a specific objective, in this case, attitudes and feelingstoward school, and specifically, peer attitudes. Students indicated positive attitudesby positive statements that would be included in a story they might write about theirschool. According to the test manual, this inferential self-report measure has48internal consistency (r = .68) and stability (r = .75) The analysis of this instrumentwould be for case study purposes.Anecdotal notes.  The teacher observer was a major factor in the collectionof data. Not only did the researcher assess the formal and informal measures inboth phases of the study, but she also kept a detailed class log documenting students'behaviors and concerns. At times the assessment of student logs was presented inhypothetical situations for further student interaction, discussion, and group lessonsin phase two of the study.ProcedureAt the beginning of the school year, letters of permission for students to participatein the study were sent home. The parents were given further opportunities to clarifythe intent of the study in a parent-teacher interview the same week. Parentalpermission was granted for 27 of the students. One family, intending to move fromthe district, did not respond and their child was the student who moved to anotherschool district.Baseline PhaseData collected in the Baseline phase allowed the researcher to assess patterns ofstability and/or change of the students' on-task behavior and of their attitudes.Since students would be compared to themselves, the baseline observationsprovided important information of students' on-task behavior and attitudes beforetreatment. Specific dates for collection of all Baseline measures are indicated inAppendix F.49During the first few weeks of school, class routines and teacher expectations wereestablished. Essentially, the students were encouraged to abide by the school codewhich was to try to do their personal best; to respect others, their ideas, and theirproperty; and to operate in a way that was safe, caring, and courteous to others.Students were able to choose their seating in any of the rows. Within the weekseveral students were moved in order to reduce behavior problems. At this timesome teacher made affective measures were collected. The students were asked towrite about themselves, their interests, likes and dislikes. They also completed a"Circles of Feelings" illustration showing how they felt about Reading, Writing,Mathematics, friends and school. Additional data were collected from studentwritings.Gradually, other affective measures were taken. The students were asked to write aletter to themselves about their perceptions of and predictions for the grade six year.The idea of  The Story was introduced as a plan for paragraph writing. Studentswere told not to reveal their identity. Individual papers could be identified as theresearcher collected the papers in a specific order from each row and these werereferenced to a seating plan.Description of the program. During this phase, the Language Arts programconsisted of short stories and novel studies with related written expression. Specificdaily activities are outlined in Appendix F. The subject matter focused on emergingadolescence and personal problems. Students were also given opportunities toparticipate in large group discussion and to represent their comprehension in avariety of ways (illustrations, cartoons, newspaper ads). Additional reading ofindependent book choices was encouraged and students were given silent reading50time in class as well as encouraged to read each evening at home and record theirprogress.The elements of the novel and story grammar (plot, setting, character, theme,conflict and resolution) were introduced at this time. The teacher researcher usedthree different methods for novel studies in this phase -- read aloud with discussion,individual reading of class novel, and read aloud with reader response.Read AloudThe teacher covered up the book in order that the students not see the title nor thebook cover. This novel was read each day and students were encouraged to predictplot and discuss relationship of character to story conflict and resolution. This storywas fast-paced and students were not expected to engage in lengthy writtencomprehension, but answered questions orally or in short sentences and paragraphs.Class Novel StudyAfter initial story prediction activities, a class set of novels was distributed. Theteacher read the first chapter and ensured that students understood the storyproblem and setting and that the students could identify the main characters.Reading of the novel was structured in segments and assigned for completion bothin class time and at home. Language Arts activities to accompany this novel werecompleted during seatwork time. These activities varied in nature and each studentcompiled his/her work to form a literature booklet.Read Aloud With ResponseThis novel was chosen because of its topical nature, that of adolescents searching foridentity. The teacher read the novel aloud each day and the students were required51to respond with their thoughts in at least one full page after each reading. Initially,the teacher collected the students' work and responded back, but after a few days,encouraged the students to complete their reader response booklets and then sharethem with the teacher. Students were also prompted to respond to their ownwriting, to reflect upon their written expression, and to evaluate the progress of theirown reader response.Although the subject matter and activities were student centered, all lessons weretaught in a rather traditional manner. The lesson was introduced, developed, andfollowed by seatwork activity, to be completed individually. With the exception ofreader response, students were expected to hand their assignments to the teacherfor reading and assessment at the end of the work period. The seatwork andcompletion of assignments was monitored very carefully by the teacher. Studentwork was shared and discussed with the teacher assistant so that she could feel anintegral part of the class activities and adjust assignments for her charges.As previously stated a brief description of the lessons taught and activities assignedto students during the observation sessions in the Baseline Phase is provided inAppendix F.Time on task. During the assigned seatwork activities, the researchercollected baseline data of the subjects' time-on-task behavior. Observations weremade between the dates 92.09.14 and 92.10.16. General observations were made ofthe class as a whole and recorded in the teacher's personal log. Specificobservations of the selected subjects for case studies were documented on the TimeOn Task data collection sheet (Appendix A) and carried with the teacher researcheras she circulated and monitored the students' work. Three of the selected subjectswere chosen for close study each observation. In order to ensure that students' on-52task behavior was sampled and documented throughout the whole period, theresearcher observed each selected informant on a rotational basis through 3 timeframes: beginning, middle, and end of seatwork. The students were given a fewminutes to settle to task, then an identified subject was observed for 3 minutes. Theteacher researcher, then, circulated around the class answering and acknowledgingother students for approximately 4 minutes. A second subject was then observed for3 minutes, followed by another 4 minute teacher circulation time. Finally, the thirdselected subject was observed for the last 3 minutes. At the end of this time thelesson was summarized. If a subject due for observation was absent, another subjectwas observed. It should be noted that all six students were observed for the firstthree sessions in order to establish initial on-task behavior of the same activity. Asample of a completed observation sheet appears as Appendix B. The rotationalobservation could be represented in Table 2.Observation sessions were scheduled approximately three times per week. Elevenobservations were completed for 5 of the selected subjects. The 6th subject was latereturning from another country, only eight observations could be completed beforethe intervention treatment began.53Table 2Rotational Schedule Of Students ObservedSegment Of Allocated Time For TaskStudentA^b^m e^b^m^eB b^m e^b^m^eC^m e^b^m^e^bD m e^b^m^e^bE e^b^m e^b^mF^e^b^m^e^b^m1^2^3^4^5^6^7^8^9observation sessionsb = beginning m = middle e = endDuring the time of the last three observations for each subject, the students hadbeen placed in quads, groups of four students sitting together. This placement wasfor seating purposes only as no treatment had begun. Observation documentationwas shared with the teacher assistant who was also encouraged to note on-taskbehavior. Student comments recorded were those overheard by the researcher andby the teacher assistant.Motivation for learning.  Shortly after baseline data of on task behavior wasbeing collected, the  Scale Of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In TheClassroom (Harter, 1980) was administered (92.10.15) according to specificdirections given in the manual. Students were informed that this scale was not a test54and that there were no right or wrong answers. Each item was read aloud andstudents were given time to indicate their choice of responses. This procedurehelped students who could not read English easily but who could understand thespoken language. Students' names were coded and these codes were compared to aseating plan for specific identification.Preference for work structures. Also, at this time (92.10.16), the whole classsample was given a questionnaire (Appendix D) that would provide the researcherwith background information about the students' feelings regarding group work.The students were also asked to indicate their preferences for work structures:working alone, working with a partner, working within a group. Their individualchoices were to be supported with reasons. The teacher researcher informed thestudents that their responses would help her structure seatwork activities in whichthe students would engage.Intervention PhaseOnce baseline patterns of behavior had been established, the researcher began thetreatment or intervention (92.10.20). During this phase, the treatment, cooperativelearning, was introduced gradually and the dependent variables (on-task behaviorand attitudes) were assessed. Daily activities during the Intervention Phase aredetailed in Appendix G. The researcher noted changes in students' behavior, andwith the six selected case studies, compared each student to him/herself. Affectivemeasures taken, as outlined in the Instrumentation, were designed to indicateattitude change.55At the beginning of this phase, several decisions had to be made by the researcheras to the placement of students in groups, and as to whether these groups should bepermanent base groups, composed for literature study, or flexible groups formedaccording to the assigned activity. Decisions also had to be made as to how themany needs of this class could be integrated into cooperative learning groups.Group composition. The researcher decided to form semi-permanent,heterogeneous base groups that would also serve as the basic unit for literaturestudies. These base groups consisted of four students sitting and working together.Students were informed that the teacher would be composing the base groups toprovide an effective learning environment for the class. The students wereguaranteed that they would have opportunities to form other groups for variousactivities and that they would eventually be able to work with every student in theclass. They were also told that these base groups would be changed every fewmonths.Several factors influenced the forming of these cooperative base groups. A range ofacademic abilities must be represented within each quad and so the students weredivided accordingly. There were two boys and two girls in each group with an evendistribution of English As Second Language students. Once the initial group planwas drafted, additional changes were made within the aforementioned framework toaccommodate the following placement concerns: two special needs students; threevery strong, somewhat negative leaders; a severe behavior problem; one student,considered an isolate by all of his peers; and three students who spoke very limitedEnglish, one, not at all.56Another consideration was the division of personal friendship groups. This classwas made up of students coming from three different classrooms last year, and theteacher observed that the students separated themselves into four very distinctsocial groupings. These groups did not choose to mix with each other inside oroutside of the classroom. It was the intent of the teacher to foster more integrationof these students.The subjects for case study selections were another major consideration. Theteacher researcher felt that the 6 subjects selected for close observation should notbe placed in the same literature base groups. Since the teacher would be observingthese students closely, an inordinate amount of time by the teacher might be spentwith one base group. Thus, the selected subjects were placed individually in six ofthe seven base groups.Description of the program. During this phase the Language Arts programhad a dual foci:1. the content of the Language Arts program2. the learning of cooperative skills needed to study the content within agroup setting.The program consisted of reading and writing in the content area, in novel studies,and in a literature unit fostering independent reading. The subject matter focusedon topical issues from the newspaper, on young adolescents' facing personalresponsibility, and on Greek and Roman Mythology. Within this program,cooperative learning was introduced and cooperative social skills were taught. (SeeAppendix G for a sample of lessons and student activities.)57Reading In The Content AreaSince the Referendum for Constitutional Reform was a current issue in thenewspaper, several activities were structured using this subject. The students weregiven background information to read in a variety of ways and were taught how toscan for overall ideas. The students learned to highlight key words and main ideas,and sequence or list important supporting details. The Jig Saw (Aronson, 1978) wasoften used as a structure for students to share their individual reading assignments.Novel StudiesTwo novels (Appendix H) were selected to be studied as mirror novels and weredistributed between the literature groups so that an equal number of students readeach novel. The teacher decided the group's novel and each student within the basegroup read the same novel. Students were then paired with a "secret pen pal" fromthe other novel study and given a code so as to keep the identity of theircorrespondent a mystery. During the reading of these novels, the students, as thenovel's main character, wrote back and forth to each other, describing the action ofthe story and sharing the character's concerns, growth, and changes.Comprehension was fostered through this pairing and sharing process, and bycooperative group activities within the literature-base group. The students who didnot speak nor write English were allowed to share a letter from another pen pal,then gradually they were able to write their own letter. At the end of the novelstudy, the pen pals' identities were revealed and additional cooperative activitiesbetween these correspondents took place.Independent Reading Literature UnitThe study of Greek and Roman Mythology was designed to integrate literature andthe science of the Solar System. The teacher flooded the classroom with many58sources of this mythology and students were encouraged to read, independently,books of their own choosing. The teacher also ensured that the books were ofvarying styles (picture books, anthologies, novels) and had a wide range ofreadability levels. For the first week students simply read as many myths as theycould, kept a record of their readings, and compiled a registry of Greek names.When questions arose as to the characters' identities, students were encouraged towrite down their queries. Once a base of knowledge was established, studentsentered into cooperative reading and writing activities that would enhance theirlearning of this subject. The teacher also read aloud a novel based on Greekmythology and the students engaged in reader response. This activity was anadditional source of information for the students' cooperative learning activities.Description Of The TreatmentThe structure of cooperative learning and the social skills required for effectiveimplementation were introduced in a gradual, sequential order. The researcherattempted to ensure that the essential components of cooperative learning, asproposed by the Johnsons (Johnson et al, 1990), were an integral part of theseactivities. These elements included positive interdependence--students' success isdirectly related to the success of each individual and the success of the group as awhole; face-to-face promotive action--participation in verbal exchange within theconfines of the group; individual accountability--each group member is heldresponsible for his/her own learning and the learning of the group; interpersonalskills--procedures for effective group communication and conflict management;group processing--time for group analysis and reflection. A brief description of thecooperative learning focus is included in Appendix G.59Cooperative structures. The students worked with each other from a verysimple to a more complex structure. At first the students were paired with a "buddy"from a Primary 1 classroom and were given the opportunity to work with thatstudent in a brief activity. This initial pairing was designed so that students wouldnot feel threatened by peer pressure and so that the teacher observer could see howstudents reacted when given a task to complete with another person within a givenperiod of time. This process was repeated a few sessions but observation wasinformal.Students then began working with each other within their own classroom from avery simple pairing and sharing activity through more complex assignmentsinvolving triads and quads. Eventually students began to engage in group activitieswhereby they pursued a group focus or interest. At this stage the groups' activitiesmay have extended over several work periods. The students gradually learned totake on roles within their group as the roles were introduced in conjunction with thecooperative skills.Cooperative skills. The essence of cooperative learning is the acquisition ofskills that allow one to function within a group. These cooperative skills wereintroduced by the researcher in a four stage sequence. Each stage and its specificcooperative skills were discussed and were reinforced with visual aids and wallcharts. The students were referred to these charts during each lesson as wasdeemed necessary. Once the skill was introduced, maintenance was modelled andencouraged in the succeeding lessons. Occasionally, the teacher had to backtrackand reteach cooperative skills that were not being used. This decision was based onthe teacher's observation of the activities, and on the teacher's perception of the60student's responses in their learning logs. The four stage development ofcooperative skills is outlined as follows:Forming GroupsStudents were taught how to move into groups quietly and once there, to stay withtheir group. Since students were sitting with their literature group, forming thegroup often meant quietly removing unnecessary materials and leaning into thegroup. Although the students were expected to be in close physical contact, handsand feet were to be kept to oneself, only eye contact made. Quiet voices wererequired and the teacher introduced the students to the "rhubarb level" - a termreferring to discussion that could only be heard within a 30 cm radius. The roles ofMaterial Organizer (being responsible for all necessary materials), Recorder(recording the group's discussion), and Reporter (giving feedback to the wholeclass), were introduced at this time. At this stage, students were also learning howto encourage their group members' participation.Functioning GroupsSkills were gradually taught to help the students function effectively in order tocomplete the given task and to maintain a working relationship. Students learned toidentify, restate, and clarify the purpose of the assignment, both from the teacherand other students. Group leaders were assigned to direct the work and ensurestudents were on task. Paraphrasing and seeking clarification of others' input wasintroduced at this time and students were encouraged to practise this skillthroughout the day. Students were given the roles of Clarifier, Group Leader, andObserver (a person assigned to observe and record what skills were being used bymembers of their group). The students were also encouraged to state their personalfeelings about a problem as opposed to blaming another member of the group.61Formulating GroupsOnce the students were able to communicate reasonably well with each other, skillswere introduced to help them retain information and to build deeper understandingof the material studied. Students were taught how to elaborate on their own andeach other's answers and how to summarize the material discussed. More verbalgroup participation was expected at this level and students took on the role ofdirecting this participation and ensuring that the conversation was not beingmonopolized by one person.Fermenting GroupsAt this stage, students were becoming more active within their groups and weremaking decisions that would direct their own learning. Students were taught how tocriticize constructively, and were encouraged to criticize ideas not people. Thestudents also practised integrating different ideas into a single position or productand to justify or support their positions with documentation or supporting details.At this stage, the group product became more important as the students were morecomfortable with the process of group work.Skills lessons. Each cooperative skill was introduced in a mini lessonfocussing on that skill. Often a T-Chart was constructed by students and teacherillustrating what the new skill "looks like" and "sounds like". Then the studentswould practise ideas listed on the chart in personal scenarios generated from thestudents' current interests. If applicable, a student from each group would beassigned the role incorporating that skill. These roles would then be rotated insubsequent lessons or used throughout the day. The students were informed thatthe teacher would be watching for effective use of that particular skill, and thus, theysaw the teacher researcher circulating about the classroom with clipboard in hand.62At the conclusion of the activity, students were encouraged to process or discusstheir group's work, trying to identify what went right, what might be improved nexttime. Occasionally the group would complete a written assessment of itscooperative progress. Also the students often processed individually by writing intheir Learning Logs. They noted the progress of their individual cooperative growthby completing a Johnsons'Cooperative Checklist (Johnson et al, 1990). A sample ofthe checklist appears as Appendix I.Time On TaskDuring the seatwork activities performed by the group, the teacher researcherobserved the on-task behavior of the subjects. The researcher observed thefollowing types of behavior:Off-task behavior: (disruptive and non-disruptive behavior)* off-topic chatting* moving about the classroom needlessly* engaging others in play* daydreaming* out of contact with people or task* engaging in self-playOn-task behavior: (a commitment to entering into and completing a givenassignment)* oral discussion on topic* reading or writing in assigned task area* aural awareness of teacher and peers* positive body language63General observations were made of the whole class and recorded on the Teacher'sLog observation sheet. The selected subjects for case studies were observed closelyand their on-task behavior recorded on the observation grid. The same rotationalschedule used in the Baseline Phase was also used in this phase, with 3 subjectsbeing chosen for observation each period through the three time frames: beginning,middle, and end of period. The teacher researcher observed 1 subject in a group for3 minutes, then circulated to other groups for 4 minutes. The second subject wasthen observed for 3 minutes, followed by teacher circulation for another 4 minutes.Finally the third selected subject was observed and, as soon as possible, the teacherresearcher completed the Teacher Log. If a subject selected for observation wasabsent, another subject was observed in that time slot. On occasion, documentationof two students' interaction was made if two of the selected students happened to begrouped together for an activity. As in the Baseline Phase, all selected studentswere observed for the first three sessions in order to collect data on these studentsengaging in the same activity. The observation sessions occurred approximatelythree times per week.Affective MeasuresThroughout the Intervention Phase, data were collected that might reflect students'attitude toward learning. This information was gathered from students' and parents'comments and teacher's observations, and recorded in the teacher's personal log.The teacher also noted comments written by the students in reader response and instudent Learning Logs. Other written evidence was gained from students' selfreporting procedures and from written assignments. Students also had twoadditional opportunities to complete their Circles Of Feelings about Reading,Writing, Mathematics, school and friends.64Post TestsAt the end of the Intervention Phase (see Appendix G for time line of assessmentdates), the posttests were administered to all students in the class. These includedboth the formal and informal measures. As in the Baseline Phase, the  Scale OfIntrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In The Classroom  was read aloud and timewas given for students to indicate their responses. This measure was also to bestatistically analyzed. The questionnaires, Preference For Work Structures  and TheStory, were also administered to the whole class, again using the same format as wasused in the Baseline Phase. The results of these questionnaires were compareddescriptively to the pretest results for the class but would only be analyzed for eachof the 6 subjects selected for case studies.Selected Case StudiesAlthough all subjects participated in the Baseline and Intervention Phases of theresearch, and completed all measures according to the pre and posttest design, onlythe subjects selected for case studies were documented thoroughly for on-taskbehavior and their affective measures' results analyzed in detail. These studentswere also discussed at length with the interrater for confirmation of observedbehavior and inferred attitude analysis.Data AnalysisData were analyzed on two levels: whole class analysis and individual case studyanalysis. Some of the measures taken were interpreted statistically while other65measures were observational and analyzed in a descriptive, informal manner forcase studies.Motivation For LearningThe Scale Of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In The Classroom, given to thewhole class according to the pre- and posttest design, was statistically analyzed.Students' scores were tabulated across the five dimensions of Challenge, Curiosity,Mastery, Judgement, and Criteria, and a mean average calculated for each studentin every dimension. The same procedure was used in both pre- and posttests.Descriptive statistics, frequencies, and histograms were applied to this dataincluding gender specific analysis. T-Tests (Dixon, 1988) were used to determinesignificant differences in each of the five dimensions. The t-tests were analyzed forwhole class scores and for gender specific data. It was suggested that t-tests notanalyzed for ability because the n was so small (Dr. Boldt, personal communication,March 17, 1993). Ability was analyzed separately for the selected case studies.While the Scale is meant to identify and analyze specific motivational components,the Scale is referred to as having a two factor solution: Motivational Components ofChallenge, Curiosity, Mastery forming one factor; Informational Components ofJudgement and Criteria forming the second factor (Harter, 1980). Since the manualreports that the Motivational Components' correlations are moderate to high andthe Informational Components' correlations are moderate, the researcher usedadditional multivariate analysis: Hotellings Matched-Pair Design (Dixon, 1988).The statistical information in each of the five dimensions of this scale was also useddescriptively for each case study. Class and gender mean averages for each of the66five dimensions were plotted for the pre- and posttests. Each of the six studentsselected for case study was profiled individually in relation to these means, anddescriptive analysis was generated. If a score in each dimension varied by one-half ascale, it was considered to be a significant change (Dr. Walter Boldt, personalcommunication, February 14, 1993).Time On TaskThe six students selected for case studies were analyzed for their on-task behavior inthe Baseline and Intervention Phases. This behavior was analyzed bothquantitatively and qualitatively. A single case experimental design, Split MiddleMethod of Trend Estimation (Hersen and Barlow, 1976) provided a method fordescribing behavior change and indicating the rate of behavior over time. For eachcase study, a linear trend, or profile, was plotted from the data allowing forinterpretation of Baseline behavior and projection of this behavior into theIntervention Phase. Efficacy of intervention was analyzed in relation to theindividual's actual performance. Profiles were supplemented with data orinformation collected from teacher logs and from each student's Learning Log. Thepercentage of time on task for each student was calculated and comparison madebetween Baseline and Intervention Phases.Comparison was also made between the students selected for case study. In each ofthe three ability groups, the linear profiles of on-task behavior were plotted formales and females. Also, the percentage of time on task for males and females wascompared in each ability grouping.67Attitudes Toward LearningAs well as analyzing motivation as an indicator of students' attitudes towardlearning, the researcher also assessed and analyzed students' attitudes in an on-going way throughout the data collection. This assessment was qualitative andbased on information gathered on the six students selected for case studies. Theteacher looked for positive or negative statements, both oral and written, made bythese students in assignments, reading responses, and in personal logs.Questionnaires were analyzed for changes in response that might indicate changesin attitude. On the Likert style questionnaire, the researcher calculated a meanclass response for each of the 20 questions both in pre- and posttests. These meanswere then used as a base from which to compare the individual responses of thestudents selected for case studies. The criterion referenced questionnaire was alsoanalyzed for changes in positive response between pre- and posttests for the 6selected students.In conclusion, the study was conducted in two phases: Baseline and Intervention.Both formal and informal measures were used to collect data. This data werecollected and analyzed on two levels: whole class study and selected case study.68CHAPTER FOURRESULTSIntroductionThe purpose of the study was to investigate the effect that a Cooperative Learninggoal structure would have on the on-task behavior and on the attitudes towardlearning and school of young adolescents. The results of this study are organized intwo sections:1. a statistical analysis of the two hypotheses tested2. a further analysis of the hypotheses as presented in the six case studies.The first section is a quantitative analysis of these hypotheses. In testing hypothesisone, that young adolescents who engage in a cooperative learning goal structureincrease on-task behavior, evidence of on-task behavior of the six students selectedfor case studies is presented. In testing hypothesis two, that young adolescents whoengage in a Cooperative Learning goal structure exhibit a more positive attitudetoward learning and school, the class results of the pre- and posttests of  IntrinsicVersus Extrinsic Orientation In The Classroom (Harter, 1980) are presented.The second section is a further qualitative analysis of the data as relevant to each ofthe six students selected for case studies. The individual statistical results for thesestudents from the two hypotheses tested are examined. Additional ethnographicand informal data gathered during the study further describe the statistical results.69INITIAL ANALYSISThe results of testing hypothesis one are presented as statistical descriptions foreach of the six case studies. Gender, as a separate factor, is compared in eachacademic ability grouping. The percentage of on-task behavior in both Baseline andIntervention Phases of the study is given.In testing hypothesis two, results include a descriptive statistical analysis of thedifference between means in each of the five dimensions tested of the  Harter Scale.Gender is analyzed as a separate dimension. Multivariate analysis of the "two-factorsolution", as described by Harter, is also presented.Hypothesis 1: Young Adolescents who engage in a Cooperative Learning goalstructure increase on-task behaviorThe  Split Middle Method Of Trend Estimation (Hersen & Barlow, 1976) wasapplied to each individual case study. The plotting of time on task revealed a lineartrend that was used to describe present behavior and to predict future behavior.The rate of behavior was calculated by a "line of progress", or celeration line, foreach of the Baseline and Intervention Phases. In each phase of the observations,the data were divided in half to produce a split middle for trend estimation. Withineach half a mid-date and a mid-rate were found and their intersections calculated.The line joining the intersections in both phases was drawn. These linesrepresented the line of progress or behavior rate within each phase.70In the Baseline Phase the level of the slope was determined by noting the level ofceleration on the last day. The level of celeration on the first day was taken in theIntervention Phase. The slope of progress, or rate of change, was calculated bydividing day or day 7 (the larger by the smaller value). Change in the rate ofbehavior between the two phases was calculated by dividing one slope by the other.By projecting the celeration line of the Baseline Phase into the Intervention Phase aprediction was made as to behavior change. By comparing the data in relation tothe projected slope, the probability (p) of change was determined. The binomialapplied to the split middle slope test of data points (x) would be the probability ofattaining x above (or below) the projected celeration line. By definition of the splitmiddle slope, p = .5 given the null hypothesis. The following binomial was used incalculating p:Equation 1f(x) = (n/x)pnThe celeration line of the Baseline Phase, projected through the Intervention Phase,should be an estimate of behavior assuming no Intervention effect. If so, an equalnumber of points, (or 50% of the data), should lie above (or below) this line.STUDENT ATwenty-seven observations were recorded of Student A's on-task behavior--11 in theBaseline Phase and 16 in the Intervention Phase. The observations, as with all sixcase studies, were taken throughout three time frames of the student's workingperiod: beginning, middle, and end, in order to ensure a fair sampling of the71Change In On-Task BehaviorStudent ABaseline^ In^ e iostudent's behavior during a given work period. The celeration lines of progress weredetermined for both phases. The plotting of time on task and the "projection" of theceleration line from Baseline through Intervention Phases indicating the change ofbehavior of Student A is shown in Figure 5.Figure 52 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11^12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27ObservationsChange in: level 2.5/0.25 10slope.4 0/2.0 2In the Baseline Phase, the level of behavior was 2.5 (minutes on task) and the slopeof progress, or rate of behavior, was 2.0. The Intervention Phase yielded a level of0.25 and a slope of 4.0. The change in rate of behavior of Student A was 2.0.Therefore, the increase in time-on-task behavior, in the Intervention Phase, ofStudent A was 2.0 times greater than the behavior of this student in the BaselinePhase. The statistical test, using the binomial Equation 1, applied to the datareveals p = .00001. The probability of 16 data points falling above the projectedslope was p = .5 by chance alone.72STUDENT BTwenty-seven observations were recorded of Student B's on-task behavior--11 in theBaseline Phase and 16 in the Intervention Phase. The on-task behavior of StudentB was plotted and the celeration lines determined for each phase. The time-on-taskbehavior of Student B and the celeration line of progress indicating rate of behavior,projected from Baseline through Intervention Phases, is depicted in Figure 6.Figure 6In the Baseline Phase the level of behavior was 2.0 (minutes on task) and the slopeof progress, or rate of behavior, was 1.0. The Intervention Phase showed a level of2.8 and a sldpe of 1.07. The change in rate of behavior of Student B was 1.07.Therefore, the increase in time-on-task behavior, in the Intervention Phase, of73Student B was 1.07 times greater than the behavior in the Baseline Phase (p =.0004).STUDENT CTwenty-six observations were taken of Student C's on-task behavior--11 in theBaseline Phase and 15 in the Intervention Phase. The on-task behavior of StudentC was plotted and the celeration lines of progress determined for each phase. Thison-task behavior and the celeration line of progress, projected from Baseline toIntervention Phases, showing change in on-task behavior is depicted in Figure 7.Figure 7Change In On-Task BehaviorStudent CR 3a0 2 —IBha 10Baseline Intervention_44slope 1.0level^1.0IT " slope 2.8level^52 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11^12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26ObservationsChange in: level^1.0/.5 2.0slope.. 2.8/1.0^2.874In the Baseline Phase the level of behavior was 1.0 (minutes on task) and the slopeof progress, or rate of behavior, was 1.0. The Intervention Phase yielded a level ofBaseline12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27ObservationsChange in: level 2.25/0.5 4 5slope. 3.33/2.67 - 1.252 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11.5 and a slope of 2.8. The change in rate of behavior of Student C was 2.8.Therefore, the increase in time-on-task behavior, in the Intervention Phase, ofStudent C was 2.8 times greater than the behavior in the Baseline Phase (p = .003).STUDENT DTwenty-seven observations were taken of Student D's on-task behavior--11 in theBaseline Phase and 16 in the Intervention Phase. Student D's on-task behavior wasplotted and the celeration lines of progress determined for each phase. The time-on-task behavior of Student D was plotted and the celeration line of progressprojected from Baseline through Intervention Phases, showing rate of behavior forStudent D is depicted in Figure 8.Figure 8Change In On-Task BehaviorStudent D75In the Baseline Phase the level of behavior was 2.25 (minutes on task) and the slopeof progress, or behavior rate, was 2.67. The Intervention Phase yielded a level of 0.5and a slope of 3.33. The change rate of behavior of Student D was 1.25. Therefore,the increase in time-on-task behavior, in the Intervention Phase, of Student D was1.25 times greater than the behavior in the Baseline Phase (p = .00001).STUDENT ETwenty-seven observations were made of Student E--11 in the Baseline Phase and16 in the Intervention Phase. The observation results of Student Es on-taskbehavior was plotted and celeration lines showing rate of behavior were calculatedfor each phase. The time-on-task behavior of Student E and the projection of theceleration line indicating the rate and change of behavior is depicted in Figure 9.Figure 976Change In On-Task BehaviorStudent EBaseline^I^Interventionao 2Beha 1VO01slope - 1 0level - 1 22 3 4 5I 6 7 8 9 1011^12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27ObservationsChange in: level^1.2/1.0^1.2slope= 1 6/1 0 = 1 6slope 1 6level^1.08 9 1011 121314151617181920212223242526272829ObservationsChange in: level^1.251-.1^.12.5slope.. 14/3.67 3 61In the Baseline Phase the level of behavior (minutes on task) was 1.2 and the slopeof progress, or rate of behavior, was 1.0. The Intervention Phase yielded a level of1.0 and a slope of 1.6. The change in behavior of Student E was 1.6. Therefore, theincrease in time-on-task behavior, in the Intervention Phase, of Student E was1.6.times greater than the behavior in the Baseline Phase (p = .08).STUDENT FTwenty-six observations were taken of Student F's on-task behavior--8 in theBaseline Phase and 18 in the Intervention Phase. The on-task behavior for StudentF was plotted and celeration lines showing rate of progress were determined forboth phases. The time-on-task behavior for Student F and the projected celerationline of progress indicating the rate and change of behavior is depicted in Figure 10.Figure 10Change In On-Task Behavior77In the Baseline Phase the level of behavior was 1.25 (minutes on task) and the slopeof progress, or rate of behavior, was 3.67. The Intervention Phase showed a level of-.1 and a slope of 14. The change in rate of behavior of Student F was 3.81.Therefore, the increase in time-on-task behavior, in the Intervention Phase, ofStudent F was 3.81 times greater than the behavior in the Baseline Phase (p = .03).It appears that for all six selected students time-on-task behavior was unstableshortly after Intervention but with the exception of Students C and E, leveled out ata maximum of time on task for the observed time frame. A compilation of thelevels and slopes depicting trend estimation of time-on-task behavior for the sixselected case studies is depicted in Table 3.Table 3Results Of Trend Estimation Of Time On Task BehaviorBaseline Intervention Change pStudent Level Slope Level Slope Level Slope 1A (m) 2.5 2.0 0.25 4.0 /10.0^x2.0 .00001B (f) 2.0 1.0 2.8 1.07 x1.4^x1.07 .0004C (m) 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.8 /2.0^x2.8 .003D (f) 2.25 2.67 0.5 3.33 x4.5^x1.25 .00001E (m) 1.2 1.0 1.0 1.6 /1.2^x1.6 .08F (f) 1.25 3.67 -.1 14.0 /12.5^x3.81 .03/ denotes a decrease in level or slope^m = malex denotes an increase in level or slope^f = female78-•-• Male.•- Female3Mi 2e1 B alineObserved Time On TaskHigh Ablility Students-111-111--11-110 • ■1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011^12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27ObservationsWith the exception of Student D the levels of behavior decreased shortly afterintervention. All slopes or lines of progress accelerated in the Intervention Phase.The change in rate of on-task behavior increased positively as a function ofintervention.Ability grouping profiles. The individual profiles of students selected forcase study, within each ability grouping, were plotted against each other. Figures 11to 13 present the comparison of on-task behavior between males and females inhigh, medium, and low ability groups.Figure 11Figure 11 indicates the performance of high ability students. The observed minuteson task for the female were higher than those observed for the male in the BaselinePhase and in most of the Intervention Phase. Both male and female showed equal793 Baseline nti!ry n ioM2ne10 •^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011^12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27Observationstime-on-task behavior at the conclusion of the study. The female student's on-taskbehavior appears to be slightly more stable after intervention than the male'sbehavior.Figure 12Observed Time On TaskMedium Ablility StudentsFigure 12 indicates the performance of medium ability students. The minutes ontask for the female were generally higher than those for the male throughout bothphases of the study. Both students showed an initial decrease in behavior afterintervention before increasing on-task behavior.Figure 13 depicts the comparison of on-task behavior for the low ability studentsselected for case study. The on-task behavior for the male was greater than that ofthe female during the Baseline Phase. Both male and female exhibited unstablebehavior shortly after intervention, with the male's behavior decreasing for a longer803 BaselineMi 2etMale8- FemaleI e ention _^_a_ a •period of time. Both male and female showed the maximum on-task behaviorrequired for the observed time frame at the end of the time sampling study.Figure 13Observed Time On TaskLow Ablility Students2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91011 121314151617181920212223242526272829ObservationsPercentage of time on task. Figure 14 presents the percentage of time ontask for each student selected for case study. The males are Students A, C, E. Thefemales are Students B, D, F.The overall time on task throughout both phases of the study ranges from 25% to94%: 25% to 70% in the Baseline Phase; 53% to 94% in the Intervention Phase.For each student the percentage of time on task is greater in the Intervention Phasethan in the Baseline Phase. In this phase, the percentage of on-task behavior foreach ability grouping is as follows: high ability students'-- 69% (male) and 94%81students -- 56% (male) and 63% (female). It appears that the females in eachability grouping exhibited more time on task in this phase.Figure 14Table 4 shows the percentage increase of on task behavior for males and females ineach ability group.All students showed increase in time-on-task behavior in the Intervention Phase.The greatest gain in increased time on task was made by Student F. The least gainwas made by Student E. Both students were of low academic ability.82Table 4% Increase Of Time-On-Task Behavior Of Three Ability GroupsStudent Ability Baseline Intervention IncreaseA (m) high 48% 69% 21%B (f) high 70% 94% 24%C (m) medium 30% 53% 23%D (f) medium 52% 75% 23%E (m) low 45% 56% 11%F (f)m = malelowf = female25% 63% 38%Hypothesis 2: Young adolescents who engage in a Cooperative Learning goalstructure exhibit a more positive attitude toward learning and school.In testing hypothesis 2, the difference between means for the five dimensions(Challenge, Curiosity, Mastery, Judgement and Criteria) of the Harter Scaleindicating intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom was determined. Astatistical Matched Pairs t-Test analysis (Dixon, 1988) of these means was calculatedon the whole class, and on males and females as a separate factor, according to thepre- and posttest design. Further multivariate analysis (Dixon, 1988) of HotellingsMatched-Pair Design was conducted on the data in order to take into considerationcorrelations between the five dimensions of the Scale. This multivariate analysiswas conducted on the two factor solution (Harter, 1980) grouping Challenge,83Curiosity, and Mastery as Motivational Components, and Judgement and Criteria asInformational Components.Results of Matched Pair t-Tests showing the difference between means, standarddeviations, and levels of significance resulting from testing the five dimensions ofthe Harter Scale for the whole class sample are depicted in Table 5.Table 5Whole Class Difference Between Means For Five Dimensions Of The Harter ScalePreDimension MeanPostMeanStandardDeviation t value PChallenge 2.8971 3.0062 0.497 -1.12 .2731Curiosity 2.9612 3.2818 0.414 -3.95 .0006Mastery 2.9356 3.1600 0.408 -2.80 .0096Judgement 2.8907 2.8393 0.602 0.44 .6665Criteria 2.8651 3.1215 0.499 -2.62 .0150Four of the five directions showed positive growth. Three of the five dimensionsincreased significantly after treatment, using the criteria of p < .05. These wereCuriosity Interest (t25 = -3.95, p = .0006), Independent Mastery (t25 = -2.80, p =.0096), and Internal Criteria (t25 = -2.62, p = .0150). There were no significantchanges in the two dimensions of Preference For Challenge and IndependentJudgement. Scores plotted for pre- and posttests for each of the five dimensions allshowed symmetrical distributions as did the scores plotted for the differencesbetween the means.84In addition, males and females were analyzed separately. The results of theMatched Pair t-Tests for males and females are given in Table 6.Table 6Difference Between Means For Five Dimensions Of The Harter Scale For MalesAnd FemalesPreDimension MeanPostMeanStandardDeviation t value PChallengemales 2.5692 2.7497 0.495 -1.26 .2320females 3.1781 3.2260 0.508 -0.35 .7300Curiositymales 2.4580 2.9025 0.434 -3.55 .0050females 3.3926 3.6069 0.378 -2.12 .0540Masterymales 2.6941 3.0275 0.461 -2.51 .0290females 3.1426 3.2736 0.347 -1.41 .1820Judgementmales 2.9025 2.8746 0.721 0.13 .8960females 2.8806 2.8090 0.505 0.53 .6050Criteriamales 2.9581 3.0969 0.454 -1.06 .3120females 2.7854 3.1426 0.531 -2.52 .026085For males, four of the five dimensions showed positive increases. The differencebetween means in two of the five dimensions increased significantly after treatment,using the criteria of p < .05. These were Curiosity Interest (t11 = -3.55, p = .005)and Independent Mastery (t11 = -2.51, p = .029). There were no significantchanges in the three dimensions of Preference for Challenge, IndependentJudgement, and Internal Criteria. Score plots for pre-, posttests, and the differencebetween means for Challenge, Curiosity, Mastery, and Criteria showed symmetricaldistribution. There was one outlier in the difference between means for Judgement.Upon analysis, this score was attributed to a student who spoke very little Englishwhen the pre-test was given and his posttest score differed by 1.834/4.000.However, removing his score did not reveal any significant results in this dimension.For females, four of the five dimensions showed positive increases. Internal Criteriaincreased significantly after treatment (t13 = -2.52, p = .026). Curiosity Interest wasmarginally significant (t13 = -2.12, p = .054). The other three dimensions ofChallenge, Mastery, and Judgement did not yield significant changes. All test scoresshowed symmetrical distribution for pre-, posttests, and difference between means.Further analysis grouped the five dimensions of the Scale into the Motivational andInformational Components and the difference between the composite means wastested. The distribution of scores was symmetrical in both pre- and posttests, and inthe difference between means Both Motivational and Informational Componentsshowed positive increases. There was a significant difference between means in pre-and posttest scores for Motivational Components (t25 = -3.58, p = .0015) with p <.05. The difference between scores for the Informational Components of the Scaledid not yield significant results. Table 7 shows the results of this analysis.86Table 7Whole Class Difference Between Means For Motivational And InformationalComponents Of The Harter ScaleDimensionPreMeanPostMeanStandardDeviation t value PMotivationalComponents 2.8975 3.1493 0.359 -3.58 .0015InformationalComponents 2.8525 2.9604 0.454 -1.21 .2371Analyzing these two components as the "Two Factor Solution", a multivariateMatched Pair Hotellings' T2 was performed on the pre-mean vector and thepostmean vector of these composites. The results showed a significant differencefor whole class scores between the pre- and posttests (f2,24 = 6.4769, p = .0056),taking covariance into account. Therefore, the overall difference between the meanvectors for the two groups on the pre- and posttest of the Harter  Scale Of IntrinsicVersus Extrinsic Orientation In The Classroom  was significant. Analysis of thesemean differences indicates the Motivational Components affect this significancemore than the Informational Components.87FURTHER ANALYSISThe six students selected for case studies were analyzed for time on task. The timesampling for each student was supplemented with ethnographic data that wouldprovide further insight into on-task behavior. This data, as well as data gatheredfrom the  Harter Scale and other informal sources was used to assess each of thesestudent's attitude toward learning and school.Case Study - Student A(male - high ability )Background InformationStudent A has attended this school for seven years. His parents have highexpectations for his academic achievement and are supportive of the school'sphilosophy and programs. Student A is very confident about himself and hisabilities and has emerged as the class leader. He has both overt and covert "control"over other students in the class, particularly over the bigger boys as is evidenced bythe fact that most other male students will not participate in an activity unless thisleader gives his approval. For example, only when he put his name forth for studentcouncil and house leader did the other boys suggest that they might also beinterested in these positions. Student A feels comfortable with his friends althoughhe does indicate in his response to the criterion test, The Play, that this referencegroup likes only certain kinds of students and does not treat other students fairly.At the beginning of the study, this student seemed more interested in socializingthan in academic pursuits and actually worked in opposition to classroom goals. He88was not pleased with his parents' request that he be placed in this class and wrotethe following.A:^My mother says that you can prepare me for that (high school) and Ihope she's right because all my friends are in the other class. See, if mymom had not asked for me to be in this class I would be in Div. 2 .Time On Task BehaviorFigure 15 represents the on-task behavior of Student A.Figure 15Observed Time On Task.Student A3^Baseline^ InterventioMi 2nute1s0 '^1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011^1213 14 15 16 171819 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27ObservationsIn the Baseline Phase of the study, Student A's time on task fluctuated throughoutall rotational observation sessions. At first he settled to assigned tasks but hisinterest was in socializing. He identified himself in a picture/writing activity as one89who "talks alot and has different ideas ... he's (a character) just like me, I always haveto know what's going on." Student A's behavior quickly deteriorated and becamedisruptive as he spent working time calling out to others in the class, makinginappropriate comments, and displaying negative body language. During classdiscussions, Student A would attempt to put his feet up on the desk and lounge backin his chair. When assignments were given he would use any excuse to move aboutthe classroom and, en route, would stop to visit friends. He was openly challengingand flippant to the teacher. Toward the end of the Baseline Phase, as theteacher/researcher attempted to curb these visitations and outbursts, Student Abegan to exhibit manipulative behavior. He would constantly come to the teacher to"clarify" given assignments, when, in reality, he was looking for answers or trying toplease.A decision was made by the researcher to put Student A in a base group withanother strong female and one of the special needs students. Student A was privy tothe reasoning behind this decision. He was informed that his behavior had toimprove and that his energy could be used constructively to set an example forothers in integrating the special needs student into class activities.At the onset of the Intervention Phase, Student A continued manipulative behaviorto determine "correct" responses to any given activity and kept pressuring theteacher to let him work with his friends. Even when he was randomly grouped withsome very "popular" girls, he wrote, "Working with the golden girls wasn't that bad butI still would have preferred working with one of my friends".Gradually, Student A became interested in the group activities and displayed morepositive body language. He could often be seen sitting on top of the desk to get90closer to the activity. After a random grouping activity, this student wrote thefollowing.A:^I found that I worked better and faster when I went to the other group.That was because I was working with one of my friends, hint, hint. Andlike I said I would be good and I was.As Student A acquired more social skills, he began to take on the role of leaderwithin the group and kept the group on task. At first he took over others' jobs aswell, but gradually, relinquished his need to control and began supporting others.He seemed pleased with his group's work and the researcher overheard commentssuch as, "Yeah, that's good ... ours is good! Do you want to do this ...? Okay, I'll dothat." Most of Student A's responses in his learning log indicated that he enjoyedthe cooperative reading and writing activities.Student A's on-task behavior leveled out at maximum shortly after he was placed ina new base group. He commented on this placement and on a non-speaking E.S.L.student.A:^Well, I am defanatley happy with my group. I am glad that you put mewith (student's name) because I think that I can help him and at thesame time he can help me in more ways than one.Toward the end of the Intervention Phase, Student A reviewed his work and wrotethe following entry in his log, commenting on his work habits.A:^I've definitly noticed a dramastic change in my work habits, learning,attitude and reading! which I enjoy very much. It has made all my workbetter and more fun. And I don't feel as prisoned as I did. I even likegoing to school now. I just hate waking up in the morning. Like mostpeople (I think) I believe I've changed for the better and I'm enjoyingschool very much more!Overall, Student A's on-task behavior increased from the Baseline Phase (48% timeon task) to the Intervention Phase (69% time on task). This was an increase of91% Of On-Task BehaviorStudent AOn Task48.0%^On Task^Off Task^31.0%52.0%^Baseline Intervention21%. Figure 16 represents the percentage of Student A's on-task behavior in bothphases of the study.Figure 16Attitude Toward LearningStudent A was cognizant of the fact that learning was important to his parents andthat he had the ability and was expected to do well in school. Initially, he did notput forth much effort until he realized what the teacher's expectations were. Aboutfour weeks after intervention he wrote this letter in his portfolio (Figure 17).92Figure 17According to the Harter Scale, Student A's personal profile suggests that he wasintrinsically oriented in the classroom. Figure 18 depicts the results of the pre- andposttests for Student A in relation to the class average and the average for maleswithin this class.93Figure 1894Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In The Classroom--Student A ProfileFirst Testing Date:r-- MOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS irINFORMATIONALPreference^Curiosity^Independent independent^Internalfor Challenge^Interest Mastery^I^t^Coiled"' •4Intrinsic3 3422Extrinsic1Second Testing Date:4IntrinsicMOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS 1 I-INFORMATIONALPreference^Curiosity^Independent Independent^internalfor Challenge^Interest^Mastery^Judgment^CriteriaPreference Please Teacher Dependence^TeachersEasy Work Get Grades^on Teacher^JudgmentExternalCriteria14•3 3212Extrinsic1Preference Please Teacher Dependence Teachers^ExternalEasy Work^Get Grades on Teaches^Judgment^CriteriaStudent A x^X^Class  ^Males .95After intervention, Student A increased significantly in Independent Mastery ( +0.56) and in Internal Criteria ( + 0.67) The other dimensions showed no increase. Itshould be noted that the male class average for curiosity increased by 0.44 in theposttest, whereas, Student A's score did not increase in this dimension.Throughout the research, students were asked to indicate their feelings aboutspecific subjects, school and friends by completing "Circles Of Feelings". Figure 19shows Student A's representations at three stages of the research: 1) beginningBaseline Phase; 2) middle of Intervention; 3) conclusion of treatment.Figure 19During conferencing with the researcher, Student A indicated that computing inMath is boring but that the subject seems to be getting more interesting. Whenasked to tell the researcher about his illustrations regarding Reading and Writing,he stated,A:^I love what we are doing. I'm so happy with it. I've read a lot more onmy own. The avtivities are fun ... everyone has different ideas and we putthem together to make one great idea. It's neat, fun and cool.Student A also wrote about Reading.A:^I love it! I love it more than any subject except P.E. I am very glad thatwe are doing this subject on Mythology and I enjoy it thuroly. Otherreading I am enjoying more aswell. Like the reading about the planetsand solar system is almost as much fun. I am also doing more reading athome than last term and surprizingly I am enjoying it a lot!This student feels confident about classmates, and he states he feels less prisoned inschool. The results on his criterion exercise, The Story, also indicate a change inhow his friends accept and treat others within the class.On the Group Work Questionnaire, given before intervention, Student A stated thefollowing:A:^I normally prefer to work alone but sometimes it gets boring and I enjoyto talk or get some help if I'm stuck from another person. Most likely myfriend.After intervention, Student A indicated a preference for group work and wrote:A:^I believe that it is more fun and you get a much better assignment donein faster time. You get to share your ideas and work together to expandyour ideas and make them a lot better. And you have someone to talk toand you are not so miserable.The results of Student A's pre- and post questionnaires are shown in Appendix J.Student A remained the class leader throughout the research but exhibited moreconstructive behavior and seemed less interested in being the center of attention.96Although he willingly suggested working with others in class activities, he stillpreferred his close friends for socializing. This student seemed to sense theimportance of his last year at this school and typed this piece of writing for his file(Figure 20).Figure 20Grade Six--Student AGrade six has been one of the best years I've had at irestcot sofar. I've been studying wore, paying wore attention, particapating wore inclass studies and trying wy very best. I feel that I aw enjoying school andlearning wore then any other year. Grade six so far has been exciting andchallenging. And I hope that it will wake we ready and prepared for wy futureyears in high school. I aw volunteering wy time to help the teachers and theschool out. And I hope that I will leave the school with a good* reputation anda good word for we in high school. I feel that I have turned myself around,waking wore friends for the future and for high school. Where friends aredefinitiy needed to help you get through the rough times. And I hope that theteachers here at Westcot can prepare we for what is ahead at Sentinel.97Case Study - Student B(female - high ability)Background InformationStudent B is one of the quieter members of the class and comes from a family ofmixed cultural and educational backgrounds. Although Student B has attended thisschool for seven years, she has never lived within the catchment area but istransported here daily with her younger brother. As a result, Student B does notlive close to her classmates and casual socializing after school is difficult to arrange.Often, she is expected to supervise her brother after school and perform householdduties when her mother works. Based on parent interviews, it appears thatacademic expectations are high for this student. She also seems to feel pressure toachieve well academically. This student has a quiet determination about her and isnot swayed by peer pressure. She participates in various activities, such as,Olympics Of The Mind and the school newspaper, and would enter leadershipcompetitions even though she knows that she may not be the popular choice.Student B feels that it is not easy to make friends at this school and that otherstudents are not kind to her small group of friends. She scored 7/16 on the criterionpretest, The Story, and most of her negative responses referred to this unfairtreatment by peers. She has also indicated that she does not feel part of this school.Time On TaskFigure 21 shows the on-task behavior of Student B during the Baseline andIntervention Phases of the study.98Figure 21Observed Time On Task.Student BBaseline^ InterventioniM^ 1n iute1S01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2223 24 25 26 27ObservationsDuring the first two observations in the Baseline Phase, Student B wasuncommunicative and non-productive for most of the assigned activity time. Shewas not disruptive but had difficulty starting and finishing any given assignment.During that observation week, Student B was reluctant to hand in assignments andoften took these home until their absence was noted. It seems as if she did not wantto be noticed for she writes of herself,B:^I'm so tiny that nobody ever notices me. It's hard to do my schoolworkwhen I can't see the board. The good thing is, if I don't want to bechosen for something, nobody can see me!Gradually, this student became more aware of time constraints and appeared tospend more time at task. It should be noted that the dips in her profile in this phasewere observations taken at the beginning of the rotational time frame.A decision was made to place this student in a base group with one of the stronger,more disruptive boys, an E.S.L. student, and a girl with whom she felt comfortable.Throughout this Intervention Phase, Student B was generally on task. She took99direction of the cooperative model very seriously and tried to apply each social skillas it was taught. The following statements are examples of this student's interactionwith other students:B:^Well, we'd better do this first. Now, you put down this word. Let's see... Iguess that's right. What do you think?(E.S.L. student does not respond at all)B:^Do you have any questions? No? Well, you could write down mine orwe could help you make up some.B: (in role of clarifier)Is control the amount of power a government has? What else could weput to make this clear?B: (as a checker)Are you sure of this? So maybe another word could be used. Was thatfrom page 83? Did you get it ... how about you guys? Come on you guys,you've got to think of something!B: (as encourager)You know where you said ... could you maybe add ...? Yeah, that's right,then add this, but only if^you want to.To the outside observer, Student B appeared to excel in the cooperative model.However, her personal log suggested that she was quite hard on her group matesand held high expectations for their success.B:^I didn't think we made much effort ... I was really the only one who wastrying.And of the E.S.L. student, she wroteSomeone in the group is very quiet and doesn't even know what his notesmean. It didn't' t work very well in our group.She constantly referred to her efforts in trying to keep her partners on task, andexpressed a great concern about her uncertainty in mastering material if one of thegroup members didn't know the material well enough nor gave the right answers tothe group.100Shortly after treatment began, Student B began to experience some difficulties andput pressure on herself and her group. She wanted to take more time to perfect herwork and the group was not responsive to her needs nor to her perfection. On the14th observation, Student B seemed very upset and physically withdrew from theactivity. Her learning log reveals this upset.B:^I felt that I was left out of the group because they were making decisionswithout me ... I didn't get a say in it.Even when this student was an observer of her own group, her log shows herrejection.B:^I think that the group still wasn't working very well ... when I showedthem what I observed they were surprized and said that I was lying. I justwrote everything that I saw and heard.Although Student B's on-task behavior remained relatively constant throughout thisphase, the group activities were challenging her perfection and she found herfeelings about her literature group constantly changing.B:^My feelings seem to have changed quite rapidly in such a short time.First, I feel that my different groups worked well and the next time I'mfurious! I usually express only positive and negative feelings. In myreading log I usually don't express "in between" feelings.I feel that this is not going to work out. (Student) is not easy to workwith. He said that I was going to put down what he's done. Well, that'sexactly what I want to do. He also said that he was going to say I wasbossy. I feel frustrated and really ticked off I don't know what to do!These feelings did not affect the overall on-task behavior of Student B. Thepercentage of time on task increased from Baseline Phase (70%) to InterventionPhase (94%), an increase of 24%. This increase was slightly higher than Student A'sincrease, the other high ability student selected for case study. Figure 22 representsthe percentage change of Student B's on-task behavior.103.% Of On-Task BehaviorStudent BOn TaskOn TaskKa% OH Task6.0%30.0%Baseline^InterventionFigure 22Attitudes Toward LearningStudent B exhibited a mature attitude about her personal responsibility towardlearning. Her individual profile from the Harter Scale indicates that she isintrinsically oriented in the classroom. Figure 23 depicts the results of the pre- andposttests for Student B in relation to the class means and to the female group withinthat class.The only significant change for Student B occurred within the Independent Masterydimension ( + .50). This was a greater gain than both the class and female groupscores for the mean difference of this dimension ( + .22 and + .33 respectively).There was no difference between means for the other dimensions, whereas, femalesshowed a gain in the Internal Criteria dimension and the class difference betweenmeans was significant for Curiosity, Mastery, and Criteria.102Preferencefor ChallengeCuriosity^Independent independent^Internalinterest Mastery^lodgment^Criteria2 - 2Extrinsic1Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In The Classroom--Student B ProfileFirst Testing Date:r----- MOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS -if-INFORMATIONAL4321Preferencefor ChallengeCuriosityInterestIndependentMasteryIndependeMhattgeseitt Criteria'^.• . . ..•• • • •^•^t--. --.- • •^ •--- •I IPreferenceEasy WorkPlease TeacherGet GradesDependenceon TeacherTeacher'sJudgmentExternalCriteria43412343Preference Please Teacher Dependence^Teacher's^ExternalEasy Work^Get Grades^on Teacher^Judgment^CriteriaStudent B x^x^Class  ^Females .^IntrinsicExtrinsicSecond Testing Gate:IntrinsicMOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS 1 INFORMATIONALFigure 23103Student B indicated her feelings about specific subjects throughout the study. HerCircles Of Feelings show that she seems to enjoy Reading and is less worried abouther friends but that she does not feel positively about school (Figure 24).Figure 24During conferencing with the researcher, Student B stated she didn't like the boys atschool and the individual work (homework). She liked the activities because theygave you more than one answer. Her words for Reading were, "Rad man!"This student's post response to The Play shows a slight increase (9/16), with herfeeling it is easier to make friends. However, Student B still feels that her group isnot accepted by others. Figure 25 is one of Student B's compositions.104Figure 25Making Friends--Student BMAKING MY OWN FRIENDSAt Grade 6, it's hard to get friends. I find that a lot of new people andsome people who are old to Westcot School want to be cool, so they look forthe popular kids to be their friends. Anyone else who isn't popular gets leftout of a lot of things. I am unpopular myself, so I know what it feels like.That's why I make friends with the unpopular kids. It gives them the feelingthat they are welcome and somebody likes them. It's not that everyonehates unpopular kids. Some people are afraid that if they like these type ofpeople, nobody will like them. Sometimes that's true, but you should stand upfor your Feelings. A lot of people at Westcot School ( especially new kids )don't stand up for their feelings and act like sheep. They only follow theram. All the unpopular kids don't look perfect, but it's not what's on theoutside, it's what's inside that counts. Many kids don't look for that quality.Some of these people are actually very friendly. Kids just never want toget to know them.At the conclusion of the Intervention Phase, the observers noted that Student Bdemonstrated proficiency in using most of the cooperative skills taught. She wasparticularly encouraging to the special needs students and the less able females.Student B acknowledged these accomplishments in her personal self-assessment.However, she still had little tolerance for most males in the class and seemedirritated by their group presence. This feeling seems to have affected herperception of group work. On the Group Work Questionnaire, Student B originallystated a preference for working in groups.105106B:^It also helps my mind to concentrate on what I am doing. It makes mego faster because I see how fast everyone's going so I try to go fast too.It's also good to get to know other kids.These feelings seem to have changed after treatment. On the post questionnaire,Student B stated that she would rather work alone.B:^If I am in a group, most of the time I end up doing almost all theschoolwork It is easier to agree on something when you are the only oneto decide. Most of the time it is hard to get along with certain groupmembers when working and we don't want to agree with them most ofthe time."Appendix K shows the results of the pre- and post questionnaire for this student.It is interesting to note that most students in the class indicated a preference forworking with B at the start of the Intervention Phase. At the end of the treatmentperiod, Student B was not mentioned by any student as a good working partner.Case Study - Student C(male - medium ability)Background InformationStudent C entered this school last year. His parents are educators and are verysupportive of the school system. They hold high expectations for their child'sacademic success. This student, having been advanced in an earlier grade, is one ofthe younger members of the class, but has been accepted into the popular, morespirited group of boys. This peer acceptance is very important to Student C, and heappears to feel vulnerable about his position within this group. He is constantlyaware of and swayed by his friends' activities and their decisions. This is evidencedby his responses on the criterion exercise, The Story. Student C scored 8/16 and hisnegative responses indicate concern about students at this school liking him andliking only certain kinds of students. He also acknowledges that he acts like hisfriends so that they will accept him. Although he is viewed as a strong force withinthe class, in reality he is very much a follower of the select group. In a personalconference with the researcher, he confided that he is much like a "duckling" in thathe knows he follows others around.Student C has excellent verbal skills and feels quite at ease challenging adults andideas. He tends to be somewhat negative and, at the beginning of the study, overlycritical of himself and of his accomplishments. Student C describes himself inFigure 26.107Figure 26108Time On TaskThe on-task behavior of Student C is plotted in Figure 27iiiMi 2nute 1s .Student CBaseline^t^InterventionFigure 27Observed Time On Task.0^ I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11^12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26ObservationsInitially, in the Baseline Phase, it appeared that Student C was trying to settle toassigned work. However, he chose to sit near his friends and was constantlydistracted by them. Although he personally did not move about the classroom todisrupt, he engaged in verbal banter and inappropriate outbursts to other students.Shortly thereafter, his desk was moved but this seemed to exacerbate the problem.When his behavior was checked, Student C would exhibit an angry countenance andtry to engage the teacher in a discussion about the unfairness of his treatment. Hispreoccupation with the group leader remained the focal point of his attention. Forexample, during observation #3, the class leader simply looked at Student C andsaid, "Hair." Student C flushed, bolted to the sink, and wet down his head to restylehis hair. He was off task for the remainder of that period.109A decision was made to place Student C in a literature-base group consisting of anew E.S.L. boy, and two females: one a strong personality, the other, a capable, butnon-productive individual. Student C was very upset with his group placement andapproached me several times to change his group.At the beginning of the Intervention Phase he attempted to undermine thecooperative activities by trying to engage others in play. Often, he would be leaningback in his chair, trying to see what his friends were doing in the other groups. Asthe class became more involved in the activities, Student C began losing others'attention and tried to control his own group. At first, he found this frustrating andtold the researcher,C:^I don't like this kind of work Nobody listens to my ideas!He also wrote in his logMy group is not very good at working. We had a real hard time atthinking. I do not like this working in groups.Eventually, Student C was able to settle to the assigned task but still could notsustain working for long. The greatest change occurred when this student was givenvery specific roles to follow, such as recorder, time-keeper, or checker. As StudentC's negativity toward his group diminished, his on-task behavior increased. Someexamples of his responses in his log were:C:^Our group worked really well. A note of fact the best we have workedtogether.At first I didn't like ... I thought he was an annoying little loser but Ifound out he is not a loser but a bit annoying.Our group's focus was to stay on topic ... I was happy that 3/4 of thegroup worked well. But its hard to have 100%. I guess 75% is 0.KStudent C's on-task behavior diminished when he changed his base group.However, he readily accepted his new placement and used his log as a vehicle forproblem solving.C:^Our group worked very bad together. I think we will have to make somepretty drastic changes. I have a question. How could I solve It?Sometimes (student) gets really annoying and I want to slug him but Idon't. What should I do?Student C was not able to sustain maximum on-task behavior and became distractedby another emerging leader within the class. However, Student C's participation ingroup efforts continued to be positive and his overall percentage of on-task behaviorincreased from the Baseline (30%) through the Intervention Phase(53%), anincrease of 23%. Figure 28 shows Student C's percentage of on-task behavior inboth phases.Figure 28111% Of On-Task BehaviorStudent COn TaskOn Task^53.0%oi...r,,,* ^30.0%P3  c.....•^ t,I , t .  j• N .01-,^,■ ' . 1 4^111, , . . ' .^i.21 ''^ .. ;^2 ^ .,,V;,f ..C.' r. A71,7,,, 1.0t.,i ..^A tt - ;% ,e‘ ' ...^ ,,,',,,0,611 Kt ^,, IItn  I 1 .s  i , ', lriVI, ! ,?I ''■II TaskOff Task47.0%Baseline^Intervention070.0%Attitude Toward LearningStudent C's negativity was also directed at himself. At the beginning of the BaselinePhase he would often bang his head on the desk as an indication of frustration andcomment about his work being poor. He constantly needed reassurance abouthomework assignments to lessen personal anxiety. Figure 29 shows Student C'spersonal profile results from the Harter Scale.Before Intervention, Student C appears to be intrinsically oriented in one of thethree motivational components and in both informational components. His extrinsicscore for Curiosity was one of the lowest for the class. After Intervention, Student Cshowed significant gains in the dimensions of Curiosity ( + .67) and in InternalCriteria ( + .50). These gains were considerably higher than the whole class andmale group differences between means for the same dimensions (Curiosity + .18;Internal Criteria + . 14).112Figure 29113Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In The Classroom--Student C ProfileFirst Testing Date:r— MOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS 1r INFORMATIONALPreference^Curiosity^Independent Independent^Internalfor Challenge^Interest Mastery^judgment^Criteria .Intrinsic4 43 C • • • - - ••■ 3• • • • •^77:-2Extrinsic1Second Testing Oate:IntrinsicExtrinsicPreference Please Teacher Dependence^Teacher's^ExternalEasy Work^Get Grades^on Teacher^Judgment^CriteriaMOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS 1 1 INFORMATIONALPreference^Curiosity^Independent Independent^Internalfor Challenge^Interest^Mastery^Judgment^Criteria1 - 322Preference Please Teacher Dependence^Teacher's^ExternalEasy Work^Get Grades^on Teacher^Judgment^CriteriaStudent C x^x^Class  ^Males .^Student C indicated his feelings about specific subjects and school in his Circles OfFeelings (Figure 30).Figure 30At the beginning of the year, Student C was extremely apprehensive about Reading.His parents also expressed their concern about this student's lack of interest inbooks. At the conclusion of the Intervention Phase, Student C's illustrationsindicate a change in attitude, particularly toward Reading. He confided to theteacherC:^I like what were doing, you have to read a lot. I like the differentactivities both with people and myself It makes it easier with people. Ijust hate getting up, I want to sleep in!The researcher noted that Student C participated more in literature discussions andquestioned the teacher about reading more literature by the authors studied. This114student's parents also told the researcher that they were amazed their son wasreading and enjoying the literature.Student C indicated more positive responses on the post exercise, The Story, andscored 12/16. He indicated that he felt like part of a group and that studentstreated others more fairly. Student C originally indicated a preference on theGroup Work Questionnaire to work only with another person.C^I don't like working with a group because you have to share your ideaswith more than one person.On the post questionnaire, this student changed his preference to working with agroup.C..^You have more ideas, more fun, keeps me on task, helps me, talk, foolaround sometime.The pre- and post questionnaire results for Student C are shown in Appendix L.Change is indicated in this student's awareness of the group affecting taskcompletion, looking at ideas in different ways, and feeling less anxious aboutschoolwork. Although Student C's negativity has changed, this student has indicatedto the researcher that he acts like his friends so that they will accept him.115Case Study - Student D(female - medium ability)This is Student D's second year at this school. Her parents are professionals whowere born in another country and occasionally speak another language at home.Each year she spends one month in the country of her parents' origin. This studentis the middle child and seems concerned about her status within the family andamongst her peers. In the first week of school, she confided to the researcher thatshe was adopted and it was not fair that she was not as glamorous as her youngersister, nor was she fairly treated by her older brother. These feelings of fairness arealso indicated on her pre-exercise, The Story. Here, with a score of 11/16, sheacknowledges that she does not have a large group of friends and those she doeshave get pushed around by others. Student D was also quick to tears, anxious aboutassignments, and could be overly dramatic in social situations.Within the class, Student D appears to be supportive and kind to her classmates,particularly to the special needs students. She can be distracted and likes to chatwith others, but rarely is a disruptive influence in the classroom. Student D hasstrong, divergent opinions and, although not recognized as a class leader, does notfeel the necessity to follow others. Student D writes of herself (Figure 31).116Dear Me--Student D••:bar Key •ri);^1P-r4r)(1^;5I'm 01 ki/t5 +PAM, loprr?-,me..^-9,roe.4012'^s PTVe.^r"-/-mn5/ like me hp.roirce_ MW10411;41, friosl n-f 4;',P _oil^--r-^,in-bp rr25 nefAl h-ik,e. ;LT hke 4n,iven -frrm04^0147 ferpie 0 17{1I'm^°is() old- 11 ke -i-ks -iner5/11 1-e,Cramse l Ity7 43.7f-1. T trk-35 at ton^Shnc+ in C 6.5.5^e_vf-pf -1-1-ofin17 make mend Ito^ erle, Figure 31Time On Task117Figure 32 indicates the on-task behavior of Student D.Observed Time On Task.Mi 2nute1s301 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27ObservationsBaselineFigure 32Throughout all rotational time frames, this student exhibited the same behavior. Inthe Baseline Phase, her on-task time was mixed with casual chatting. At times shewould give directions or check others' work. She was also very interested inclassmates' activities.The researcher decided to enlist Student D's support and place her, with anothervery positive student, in a mixed group with a special needs student and with the"isolate" in the classroom. During this phase, she was very helpful to the specialneeds student and took direction on cooperative learning quite seriously.At the start of Intervention, Student D felt frustrated with the group's functioningand found one group mate annoying and distracting. Gradually, she began torealize the group's success and her on-task behavior increased. The following118excerpts were taken from her personal log and related to the observations taken bythe researcher.#13 I sort of like this activity but someone in our group wasn't participating.#15 It's easier to talk with people who know the information than with peoplewho don't. I wish we could have worked better together.#17 We didn't have enough time ... It wasn't my fault. (A student) keptcalling me (names). I don't like that.#18 I think our group is working more. We all took turns writing because itwas helpful. (Student) stopped calling me names. I think our group isworking 35% better out of 100%.#20 We didn't really finish but all the ideas were connected together.(Student) asked me a rude question but I ignored him.Student D's on-task behavior levelled out at maximum after she changed her basegroup. Again, this was a difficult group for she was with a strong, somewhatdisruptive male. Although she criticized members of this new group she writes ofthe change, "It wasn't as nerve racking as the beginning of the year." Student D'sthoughts about cooperative work were taken from her personal log.D:^We did a great job of keeping the rhubarb level. I am glad that we gor alot done. Some people in the group didn't like my ideas so I didn't reallytell them my ideas. We accomplished: staying on task and getting startedfaster. I'm not sure if my group likes me. I had fun doing the activity.Student D felt quite concerned about her acceptance by others and she interjectsstatements about this concern in most of her log entries. However, this worry didnot affect her overall on-task behavior. The percentage increase of Student D's timeon task was 23%. This is the same percentage increase as Student C, anothermedium ability student. Figure 33 shows this gain.119On Task52.0%ON Task48.0%Baseline^InterventionFigure 33% Of On-Task BehaviorStudent DAttitude Toward LearningStudent D felt quite positive toward school and learning. Figure 34 represents herpersonal profile results of the  Harter Scale.Student D appears to exhibit intrinsic motivation both before and after intervention.The difference between means on the three motivational components, Challenge,Curiosity, and Mastery, increased by .33, .17, and .34 respectively. Student D madethe most significant gains in the Informational Components of the Scale:Independent Judgement ( + .67) and Internal Criteria (+ 1.16). With the exceptionof the class mean difference in Curiosity (+ . 32), Student D's mean differencesbetween pre- and posttests exceed gains made by females and by the whole classgroup.120, • o—4•Class Females .Student D x^xIntrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In The Classroom--Student D ProfileFirst Testing Date:1--- MOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS ir INFORMATIONALPreference^Curiosity^Independent Independent^Internalfoe Challenge^Interest Mastery^Judgment^Criteria .1 144 I I I3 32 2tPreference Please Teacher Dependence^Teacher's^ExternalEasy Work^Get Grades^on Teacher^Judgment^CriteriaMOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS i rINFORMATIONALPreference^Curiosity^Independent Independent^Internalfor Challenge^Interest Mastery^Judgment^CriteriaI432Extrinsic12i 1Preference Please Teacher Dependence^Teachers^ExternalEasy Work^Get Grades^on Teacher^judgment^CriteriaIntrinsicExtrinsicSecond Testing Gate:Intrinsic43Figure 34121After Intervention, Student D indicated on the post exercise, The Play, that she feltshe had more friends at school but that other students still bother her in class.Figure 35 illustrates her feelings about school and subjects.Figure 35Shortly after Intervention began, Student D talked about herself during aconference with the researcher.D:^Not all kids like me, they call me Dwarf I think they don't like the way Iact.122At the conclusion of the study, Student D talked about Reading.D:^I love reading more than the beginning of the year. I understand it better.I like the activities. It's super, cool!On the Group Work Questionnaire, Student D preferred to work with anotherperson before Intervention. She writes of a person working in pairs.D:^Then he/she wouldn't talk as much as a whole group and it would beboring working alone for the full year. Plus, if he/she needs help theydon't have to disturb a whole group by getting them thrown off taskHe/she would only bother one person.Student D felt the same way after Intervention and chose to work with a partner.D:^I wouldn't be distracted much. I can share ideas, ask for help, and I canhelp them. I won't be put down as much. If one person in a group isdistracted then the whole group is distracted.Appendix M illustrates Student D's responses to the pre- and post questionnaire.On a self-assessment, Student D acknowledges that she is proud people can rely onher. She still worries about people's opinions but appears to be happy with herfriendship group and responds more positively in class, with less tears.123Case Study - Student E(male - low ability)Background InformationStudent E comes from an English speaking family. He has attended this school forseven years and was taught by the researcher the preceding year. His parents arevery supportive of the teacher and school and have been quite concerned abouttheir child's progress. In the past, this student has had a great deal of difficultyreading, writing, and completing assignments at school. He usually managed tomanipulate situations in order to take his work home, thereby, enlisting his parents'support to check over and help him complete his assignments. Until last year, theparents had been reluctant to allow remedial support. Toward the end of that year,this student began to read and was extremely proud of his efforts. According to theparents, he was secure in being taught by the researcher again, and quite excitedabout being placed in this class with the "leaders" in the school. Although Student Ewanted to be part of their group, in reality, he seemed to be a fringe member.Time On TaskAt the start of the Baseline Phase, Student E was most interested in the behavior ofthe class leaders. He sat at the front of the room and was constantly turning around.Often, he would wander over to the sink area and socialize en route. Student E wasquite lively and engaged in class discussions. His on-task behavior increased whenhe was reminded of class expectations but the overall pattern seemed to be erratic.Student E was placed in a literature-base group with a new male student and twofemales, both of whom exhibited excellent citizenship. Although Student E enjoyed124Observed Time On Task.Student EBaseline^I^InterventionM 2inute1s01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1617 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27Observations3the new student with whom he was paired, he was disappointed not to be placedwith one of the class leaders.Figure 36 indicates the on-task behavior of Student E.Figure 36As treatment was introduced in the Intervention Phase. Student E felt quiteconfident and actually appeared to take on the role of group leader. He was quitepositive about his own and his group's efforts. The following statements are excerptsfrom his learning log.#12 I think that everybody in my group worked well but it seemed to be twogroups of two.#13 I think that our group did well and made a very wild story that nobodyelse would think of We listened to each other's ideas and tried not to letanybody else here (sic).125#16 I think that I really knew my information and that they understood it ....All their questions I could answer.Mid-way into the Intervention Phase, Student E began to experience somedifficulties with male students in the class. His male group partner had started tobecome quite popular with the leaders of the class, whereas, Student E seemed tobe pushed aside and his oral responses were often snickered at during whole classdiscussion. At lunchtime, this student seemed hesitant about joining others. Theresearcher began to see a decrease in this student's confidence and Student Eseemed to withdraw into himself.At first, this decrease in on-task behavior was manifested by overt actions such asfiddling with school supplies, trying to engage others in play, and physically pullingback and being flippant with the group. However, he still was trying to control thegroup work. During observation #17, Student E was engaged in an angry discussionwith another student, and as the researcher approached he complained that thegroup wouldn't accept his ideas. He started to cry and had to leave the room. Hison-task behavior deteriorated and he was either engaged in play or inattentiveduring lessons. Student E had the most difficulty when he was randomly assigned toa group that contained a strong male personality. His log reflects his concern.E:^I think all four of us worked 0.K One out of four partners cept makingfun of me so I didn't get as much of my work done because it wasbugging me. (inserts name of student) I think if I was on my own Iwould have gotten more work lots more. I don't know what to do. I tryto eknor them but that didn't work They got their work done I didn't. IfI sould I would like to be removed from this group.Shortly after this entry, the researcher discovered that Student E was havingproblems with some male students off the school grounds and had enlisted hisparents' help. For this action, he had been ostracized by the males in the class.126% Of On-Task BehaviorStudent EOn Task^On Task45.0% 58.0%Off Task^Off Task55.0% 44.0%Baseline InterventionAbout the time observation #22 was taken, new base groups had been formed.Student E seemed pleased with his group but still wished to be with his friends. Heconfided to the researcher these "friends" were the leaders in the class who wereignoring him. Student E's on-task behavior improved in this new base group towardthe end of the Intervention Phase and he showed a slight increase in the percentageof his on-task behavior from Baseline (45%) to Intervention Phase (56%). Thisincrease of 11% was the smallest gain made by any of the students selected for casestudy and considerably less than the other low ability student's gain. Figure 37represents the percentage of on-task behavior of Student E during both phases ofthe study.Figure 37Attitude Toward LearningAccording to the Harter Scale, Student E's results indicate that he is intrinsicallyoriented in the classroom on both the pre- and posttests. Figure 38 illustrates the127personal profile for Student E compared to the whole class and male groupaverages.Figure 38128Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In The Classroom--Student E ProfileFirst Testing Date:r--- MOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS ioNFORMATIONALPreference^Carrion*^Indenerrient Independent^Internalfor Challenge^Interest Mastery^ludgereen^Criteria .4 4Intrinsic3- —..-322 —ExtrinsicSecond Testing Date:4Intrinsic0to^ 30Extrinsic1Preference Please Teacher Dependence^Teacher's^ExternalEasy Work Get Grades^on Teacher^Judgment^(MenaMOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS -1 r INFORMATIONALPreference^Curiosity^Independent Independent^Internalfor Challenge^Interest^Mastery^Judgment^Criteria143— 212Preference Please Teacher Dependence^Teacher's^ExternalEasy Work^Get Grades on Teacher^Judgment^CriteriaStudent E x^x^Class  ^Males .Student E showed slight gains in the difference between means in the pre- andposttests for the dimensions of Curiosity ( + .16) and Judgement ( + .16). TheCuriosity difference was half the gain the whole class made and considerably lowerthan the gain made by the male group in the class ( + .44). Student E's increase inIndependent Judgement exceeded the male average ( + .03) for that dimension andhis score was slightly lower than the whole class group (+ .12). There was nodifference between means for the Dimensions of Challenge, Mastery, and Criteria,whereas, Mastery and Criteria showed significant differences for the whole class,and Curiosity and Mastery were significantly different for the male group.Student E showed 14/16 positive responses on the criterion exercise, The Story, andindicated that he had a large group of friends of all kinds of students, but that someof his group got pushed around and didn't treat others fairly. On the post exercise,his score diminished and Student E acknowledged that his friends only liked certainkinds of students. On his self assessment, Student E felt quite positive about hispersonal responsibility in organizing himself and his materials, and his ability tostudy and complete assignments in school. Figure 39 illustrates his feelings towardspecific subjects, friends, and school throughout three stages of the research.It is interesting to note that Student E included his glasses in the first illustration.At the second stage, Student E talked about reading.E:^Books are interesting. I like reading these books. I like doing things ingroups. When you're doing it on your own its a bit much, a group makesit easier.129Figure 39At the conclusion of the research, Student E maintained his positive attitude towardReading.E:^I think that vocabulary and reading is the biggest change this year.He told the researcher that reading was "fun" but that writing "was not that fun".The only thing that he didn't like was getting up in the morning.Student E originally indicated on the questionnaire regarding work structures thathe would prefer to work in a group.130131E:^It makes work easyer and it gets done fastter then on your own because ifyour stunk (sic) on an answer someone in your group will help and ifyour on your own it would take alot longger and you would have morehome work If you work in a group it is a lot funner then on your own.After Intervention, Student E stated a preference to work with one other person.He gave these reasons.E:^If there is too many people you can't decide on one thing and you can ifthere is two of you. If you are working alone you can't get as many ideas.... When you are working with another person they can't take over, in agroup sometimes a cupul of people will take over.Appendix N indicates the pre- and post responses for the work preferencequestionnaire.Student E indicated that he has lots of friends, but in reality, he appeared to be leftalone a great deal. He continued to be distracted by the leaders' behavior and oftenengaged in inappropriate activities to gain these students' attention. The parentshad discussed this unrealistic perception of Student E's acceptance as a concern ofhis and were worried that his preoccupation with peer acceptance would affect hislearning.Case Study - Student F(female - low ability)Background InformationStudent F has attended this school for seven years, originally from out of thecatchment area. Her parents support all school activities and professional decisionsmade by the staff regarding their child's needs. Student F is the third of fourchildren and is expected to shoulder her share of family responsibilities. English isnot the language spoken in the home and the family is very diligent about fosteringtheir culture by involving the children in many outside activities where there islimited use of English. This student was late returning from her parents' homelandat the start of the school year.Student F has had difficulty reading and processing the English language as have allher siblings. She has received learning assistance ever since she entered school inher primary years.Time On TaskFigure 40 represents the on-task behavior of Student F.132Student FBaseline InterventionMnute1s101 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011 121314151617181920212223242526272829ObservationsFigure 40Observed Time On Task.As Student F was late returning to school, observations began immediately. Thisstudent appeared nervous about assignments and was slow to begin any given task.She would often look to those around her for confirmation of direction although shenever engaged anyone in oral discussion regarding those directions. It was difficultto ascertain whether Student F was actually on task in the Baseline Phase for sheexhibited little overt action. Her apparent "thinking" was interpreted as on-task inthis phase. Student F had a great deal of difficulty completing assignments within agiven period of time and often would neglect to submit her work to the teacher.Student F was placed in a base group with two very supportive students and oneE.S.L. student who refused to speak. The researcher had hoped the latter student'ssilence might prompt Student F into becoming more verbal.133During the first part of the Intervention Phase, Student F appeared to be on task.However, upon closer observation, Student F was simply sitting passively in hergroup. On-task behavior noted was the result of Student F being involved in themechanics of the task, such as, putting materials neatly in a pile or returning booksto the shelf. Physically, she would pull back from the group and, most often, wouldquietly play with a pencil. The only time Student F responded was to directquestions. She volunteered no information on her own. This was particularlynoticeable during lessons involving reading for content. Student F was quite contentto let the more able student give her ideas and take over her assigned roles. Theexcerpts from her learning log indicate Student Fs feelings during theseobservations.#13 I think it was fun but when ever I try to say something someone alwaysstarts talking so I don't bother.#16 I think I got alittle afrade when I had to say my part because when Isometimes get scared I get butter flys WO in my stomach and my mindforgets everything I was going to say unless I right (sic) it down but after Ifinished I didn't get scared.#17 I think we worked well together. (Name) thought also but didn't sayanything but he has a reason. After (name) says ... I didn't know what tosay because I had differenter Idias like his.Although Student F was on-task in observations #18-20, she still remained verypassive, doing what she was told. The turning point for Student F occurred whenshe was paired with her secret pen pal (from the mirror novel studies) and engagedin collaborative character writing. Here, it was essential for her to give her partnerinformation in order to complete the task. She wrote about this experience in herlearning log.F:^It didn't mater who my partner was because I would of got him orsomeone els. I think it was fun. We worked well and fast we had sparetime to talk about what we wrote and why we worte it. Me and (name)checket for C. O.P. S. I hope we get other pen pals that does something inan differenter book because I learn differenter words that I didn't knowbefore. It was fun ....134On Task25.0%On Task63.0%Following this pairing, Student F became more overtly active in her groups andrequested that she be an observer so that she could report back to the group. Shewas noticeably different in her new base group and also began to clarify directionsto the whole class and participate in whole class literature discussions.Student F continued to be a more active participant in group learning activities andincreased the percentage of her time on task from 25% in the Baseline Phase to63% in the Intervention Phase. This increase of 38% was considerably greater thanthe other low ability student selected for case study. Figure 41 illustrates thepercentage of Student F's behavior in the two phases of the study.Figure 41% Of On-Task BehaviorStudent FBaseline^Intervention1354ExtrinsicSecond Testing Date:Intrinsic3rkt0r.rsrJgatennalOr:kris .r-- MOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS irINFORMATIONALPreIeiesce^C...ia. sity^Independent ladeSseade01for Osatiewee^laterest Matiery^fectembesePreference Pkase Teacher DependenceEasy Work^Get Cracks^on TeacherTeacher's^External'judgment^C riteria• • I0 • . •^••^0-4^•ExternalCriteriaPreference Please Teacher DependenceEasy Work Get Grades on TeacherTeacher'sJudgmentIntrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation In The Classroom--Student F ProfileFirst Testing Date:4Intrinsic32MOTIVATIONAL COMPONENTS if-INFORMATIONAL432432Extrinsic1Student F X^x^Class  ^Females .2r amAttitude Toward LearningFigure 42 illustrates the pre- and posttest results of the Harter Scale for Student F.Figure 42136With the exception of a slight indication for intrinsic Curiosity Interest, Student Fwas extrinsically oriented in the classroom and relied on others to make judgementsfor her and to help her clarify her success. After Intervention, Student F showedpositive gains in all dimensions of the Scale: Challenge ( + .33), Curiosity ( + .17),Mastery ( + .50), Judgement (+ .33), and Criteria (+ .33). These gains were greaterthan both whole class and female mean differences between pre- and posttests, withthe exception of Curiosity. The informational components indicated that Student Fcontinues to be extrinsically oriented, still relying on others' judgement andknowledge.Originally, Student F indicated by her responses (9/16) on the criterion exercise,The Story, that it was difficult to make friends and that groups of students treatedothers unfairly. Following Intervention, this student's score increased (14/16) as sheindicated more positive response about her peers. From the beginning of theBaseline Phase, Student F demonstrated a positive attitude toward learning andschool as shown in Figure 43.137Figure 43Student F appears to have changed her attitude toward specific subjects as indicatedby her Circles Of Feelings. She was questioned by the researcher at mid-stage ofIntervention.F:^Reading is getting better. Some of the books are easier to read becausethe activities are fun. I do better with the group.138Figure 44 shows Student F's feelings about subjects and school through three stagesof the research.Figure 44On both pre- and post questionnaires regarding preference for work structures(Appendix 0), Student F indicated that she liked to work in groups.F:^If I don't under stand sic) something they can help me they will be therewhen I need them ....After Intervention, Student F gave these reasons.F:^We share ideas and we take turns saying things in a row and we get ontask faster and we usaly talk it over in a group because people don'tunderstand ... I alos think it is easer because if I don't understandsomething they help me.Student F showed the greatest gains in on-task behavior of all subjects selected forcase study.139In summary, the results of the present study have included both quantitative andqualitative data. The data were analyzed to determine how cooperative learning asan Intervention increased young adolescents' on-task behavior and affected attitudestoward learning and school. The quantitative analysis was conducted on six casestudies to determine change in on-task behavior, and on the whole class to measuredifference between means on pre- and posttests of intrinsic versus extrinsicorientation in the classroom. Qualitative analysis was conducted on the data asrelevant to the six case studies in order to further describe the students' on-taskbehavior and to determine these students' attitudes toward learning and school.140CHAPTER FIVEDISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONSThe present study was designed to investigate the effect that a cooperative learninggoal structure would have on the on-task behavior and attitudes of youngadolescents toward learning and school. The study examined class results from pre-and posttests to determine students' intrinsic or extrinsic orientation in theclassroom and motivation for learning. Within a sample of 27 Grade 6 students, 6individuals were selected for detailed case study. Close observation of these 6selected subjects' time on task and the assessment of numerous informal measuresprovided additional data to describe these students' learning behavior and attitudes.The researcher felt the need for empirical data in both quantitative and qualitativeform in order to fully address the following hypotheses:1. Young adolescents who engage in a cooperative learning goal structureincrease on-task behavior.2. Young adolescents who engage in a cooperative learning goal structureexhibit a more positive attitude toward learning and school.The major findings of the research were that cooperative learning increased time ontask and that this goal structure increased intrinsic orientation in the classroom, thusaffecting motivation and attitudes toward learning. Based on data collected in thisstudy, students time-on-task behavior and attitudes toward learning within acooperative goal structure appeared to be related to students' self-perception andthe interaction between peers. The present chapter interprets these findings inrelation to the factors of student ability and gender.141Although generalizations to the greater population cannot be made from this study,the design of a single n case study, supported by quantitative and qualitative data,provides findings that add to the body of literature and may suggest implications forfurther research as well as concrete suggestions for those educators employing acooperative learning goal structure (Myers, 1990; Salend and Sonnenschein, 1989).Time On Task BehaviorIn this study, time-on-task behavior appeared not only to be related to the use of acooperative learning goal structure, but also related to the functioning of thecooperative learning groups within which the students were placed. Factors thatinfluenced this functioning were: structure of given tasks, perceived peeracceptance, behavior roles, gender, and relative ability level of the students. Thesefactors were also identified by other researchers (Hertz-Lazarowitz ,1989, 1990;Mandel, 1990; Solomon et al, 1990; Webb, 1989; Webb & Kenderski, 1987).At the start of the Baseline Phase, the researcher noted in her log that the class as awhole was very difficult to manage and that the students seemed reluctant to settleto assigned tasks. Students used any opportunity to move about the class and visitwith friends. Overt disruptive behavior was prominent. This was particularlyevident in the Baseline Phase for both male and female students across all abilitylevels, although female students appeared to be more covert in their actions. Themale leaders of the class established norms that encouraged overt disruptions; thequieter students seemed intimidated by this behavior and were not forthcoming withany positive responses. As the study progressed, and Intervention was introduced,142the researcher observed that the class gradually appeared to exhibit more on-taskbehavior. When students were given the opportunity to sit together and discusstheir assignments, there was less "underground" movement and disruptive behavior.As structured interaction was encouraged within groups, the students found lessneed to socialize around the classroom. This finding was also observed in thestudies conducted by Hertz-Lazarowitz (1990). Although the noise level did notdecrease, the chatting between peers gradually focused on the task at hand.Structure Of The TaskThe Johnsons' Conceptual Approach (1986) to cooperative learning was employedin this study and the researcher ensured that the five essential components of thismodel: positive interdependence, face-to-face promotive action, individualaccountability, interpersonal and small group skills, and group processing werepresent. The researcher structured tasks to include a visible format such as pairingand sharing, quad discussion, and Jigsaw. Within this format, roles were assignedsuch as: leader, recorder, materials collector, clarifier, and observer. The researcheralso structured the introduction and maintenance of the four levels of socialprocesses based on the Johnsons' model: forming, functioning, formulating, andfermenting.The data collected revealed that students needed repeated practice in "forming"skills in order to settle to and maintain the task at hand. The researcher also noted,on the data collection sheets, that students who were given specific roles to perform,such as recorder, materials collector, and checker showed more on-task behaviorparticularly at the beginning of the Intervention when the cooperative learning goalstructure was first introduced. One concrete role, that of observer, posed difficulties143for the students, although all students wanted this job. As students debriefed orprocessed at the end of the assigned group task the observers' data was not wellaccepted, for the students had not learned the social skills necessary to acceptcriticism.Based on the students' learning logs, the researcher determined the appropriatetime to introduce the less concrete roles and social skills of clarification,elaboration, criticism, and support. Students found these roles more difficult andthose students given these jobs appeared to be less active or withdrew from the task.It was noted that if a mini lesson on a particular skill was taught prior to its use, andstudents were aware that the teacher would be looking for evidence of this skill, thestudents attempted to employ that skill and displayed more definite on-taskbehavior.Toward the end of the Intervention Phase the researcher observed that studentsrequested that specific roles need not be assigned. The students suggested that theycould divide the jobs among themselves and that it would be a fair distribution. Theteacher noticed that the students appeared to be well aware of each others' strengthsand the task was structured accordingly. For instance, high achieving students wereusually given the recorder's role if a good deal of writing was needed; if not, theyusually took the leader's role. Less able students seemed to take more concreteroles or often illustrated the product. Verbal students usually presented the work ordecided to be the clarifiers. The researcher also noted how the groups includedspecial needs students. One autistic student who was a good illustrator wasencouraged to draw, and the other student, although not as well accepted, used thecomputer for titles and/or printed material. At this stage of the treatment the144students had achieved a higher level of social skills' proficiency and exhibited moreon-task behavior.Based on these data it could be concluded that as students are introduced tocooperative learning they may exhibit more on-task behavior if they are assignedspecific roles and that these roles assigned should be introduced from the moreconcrete to the abstract. This finding would concur with Piaget's Theory that duringadolescence students are able to move from the concrete to the abstract (Santrock,1990; Slavin, 1987a; Williamson et al, 1982). The data also suggest that the skillintroduced prior to its use and subsequently monitored in the lesson encouragesmore on-task behavior. As recorded by Myers (1990), Dawes supports this findingby suggesting that people have a limited ability to process information on a cognitivelevel, particularly social information, without direct teaching. It may also beconcluded that as students become more proficient in using this goal structure theybecome less dependent on the teacher to assign structure within their group and aremore able to determine each other's natural strengths.Student AbilityRegardless of ability all six students selected for close observation showed positivegains in on-task behavior in both the percentage of time spent on task (Table 4) andin the change in rate of on-task behavior (Table 3). The graphs in Chapter Fourillustrating these students' time on task showed approximately 30 per centfluctuation in on-task behavior during the Baseline Phase. For most of thesestudents the onset of Intervention caused erratic or decreased on-task behaviorbefore a consistent level pattern was observed toward the end of this Phase. Thissuggests that a change in routine or methodology initially causes unsettled behavior.145It also may indicate that students' on-task behavior increased as they became moreproficient in using cooperative learning.There were some differences in on-task behavior relative to student ability. The lowability students, both male and female, showed an increase in rate of behaviorchange (Table 3) and in percentage gains (Table 4) but the female exhibited fargreater gains than did the male. These two students did not exhibit the samepatterns of on-task behavior in either the Baseline or Intervention Phases, andStudent E initially showed more on task behavior (Figure 13). Student E, a male,was quite outgoing until his acceptance by peers suffered. Student F, a female,made the greatest percentage gains of all students observed. Initially, this studentwas very insecure about her ability to read and write and quietly withdrew fromtasks. Both students showed increase in rate of behavior when they receivedpositive group support.The medium ability students showed modest gains in the rate of behavior change.Both students were followers and rather insecure about their acceptance by others.Student D, a female, expressed this concern openly and the increase in her on-taskbehavior appeared to be related to positive entries in her learning log. Student C, amale, although considered by many as part of the "in group", worried a great dealabout his acceptance by the class leader, Student A, and in essence would doanything the leader suggested. His on-task behavior increased about the same timeas Student A's on-task behavior increased.Both high ability students showed approximately the same percentage growth intime on task, although Student B was much more focused. Student A, the male,made more significant gains in the rate of on-task behavior change than did Student146B, the female. Both of these students initially exhibited leadership abilities but invery different ways. Student B, a quieter member of the class, was initially respectedfor her ability and strong sense of self, whereas Student A overtly directed andcontrolled the peer norms and patterns of behavior. When Student A's on-taskbehavior changed it had a direct effect on changing the norms of his immediategroup, and then the behavioral norms of the class. When student B experienceddifficulties functioning within her group she became discouraged and her leadershipabilities appeared to diminish especially in the eyes of others. She did, however,remain focused and on task, influenced perhaps by the cultural expectations of herfamily.GenderAll base groups were heterogeneous, mixed gender groups, with the exception ofone in the second base group formation. Students had the opportunity to formrandom groups or pairs of the same gender for some specific activities. AfterIntervention, females in the class appeared to spend a greater percentage of time ontask (Figure 14) than did males. Males showed a greater increase in their rate ofon-task behavior change (with the exception of Student E). This observation tendedto be generally true for the whole class for the male students appeared to settledown as the study progressed. In part this anomaly was due to the fact that thefemale students' Baseline percentage of on-task behavior was greater to start.However, the significance of the male class leader's change in attitude and focus ontask cannot be overlooked. Schmuck and Schmuck (1988) have stated thatclassroom norms influence behavior. As student A focused more on task thisbehavior became the accepted norm. Speculation could be made as to whetherStudent E, male, would have surpassed Student F, female, in rate of behavior147change if he had not undergone such a personal crisis in his peer relationships.Since most time-on-task data were collected from mixed gender groupings, it wouldbe interesting to ascertain whether the difference in percentage of time on taskbetween males and females would be different in same gender groupings. Alsofurther research might be conducted on determining the rate of on-task behaviorchange in same gender groupings.Perhaps another factor influencing gender results was the way in which males andfemales functioned within the groups. When students initially were given a grouptask pairing took place within the group and students attempted to work in samegender pairs. Gradually as they became more comfortable with the group activitythe genders mixed. However, the observer noticed that when males were given theroles of leader and clarifier these students tended to direct their questions to othermales. Males also tended to favor each other's suggestions when choices had to bemade. Female students did not challenge this inequity but did complain or expressconcern in their learning logs. These findings support Cohen's (1986) andCroniger's (1991) suggestion that adolescent boys dominate adolescent girls withinthe context of classroom activities.Roles Of BehaviorTime on task and the functioning of the cooperative learning groups was alsoaffected by the behavior roles of the students. This behavior was manifested inleadership styles and in helping behavior.Leadership styles. Mandel (1991) has found that the interaction of studentscorrelate with their leadership styles. The observations of the researcher suggest148similar findings, with limitations. Leaders and followers within a whole class settingappeared to exhibit the same behavior in cooperative learning groups. For example,Students A and B were regarded by classmates as leaders. These students directedthe group's activities and relinquished control when specific roles were assigned.They did, however, "rescue" the group when the activity was floundering. Student Cmay have been regarded as a leader by the class but inwardly felt very insecureabout his acceptance by the class leader. He initially exhibited a negativism andwithdrew from activities within his group until he saw that the class leader exhibitedon-task behavior. Students D, E, and F were followers and performed accordinglyin a small group setting.These roles changed depending on two factors--male dominance and relative abilitywithin the group. Student B was able to lead all groups until she was placed with avery strong male personality. Her leadership skills were thwarted as the malerallied the group around him and undermined the group's progress. This experienceappeared to affect her attitude toward group work although not her on-taskbehavior which she maintained, perhaps because of cultural expectations. Evenwhen the male leader was placed with a strong female student he continued to bethe dominant figure within the group.The second factor affecting leadership behavior of students was the relative abilitywithin the groups. When students were randomly grouped for an activity themedium ability students, at times, found that they were the most able of their group.When this happened, they took on the leadership role by default and became moreverbally active. This did not happen with the low ability students as theydemonstrated the least ability in all groupings. When the students returned to theirbase groups, they exhibited behavior that was expected of them. This observation149seemed to corroborate Webb and Kenderski's findings (1987) that medium abilitystudents performed better in medium-low or medium-high groups rather than inhigh-medium-low groups.Helping behavior. Student F made the most gains in percentage of timespent on task and in rate of on-task behavior change. This could be a result of thehelping behavior she received from other students. Hertz-Lazarowitz (1989) andWebb (1982, 1989) have found that helping behavior was directly related to theability of the student, the personality, and the group composition. The teachermade a conscious decision to place Student F with strong female class leaders inboth her base groups. These students appeared to perceive Student F's need andwere most supportive of her constant efforts. As a result she was drawn into tasksand the helper-learner role was established. It appeared that her on-task behaviorincreased accordingly. Student E, the other low ability male, did not experience thesame positive help from his classmates. This was due partly to his problems withpeers and the negative messages he personally gave to his group, but also to thegroups' perception that he didn't deserve the help as he often demanded his ownway or pulled back from the group. Student E did not have as supportive a group asdid Student F.Students C and D received a moderate amount of helping behavior from their groupmates depending on the relative ability of the group. In a heterogeneous group ofhigh, medium, and low ability they tended to be ignored, and as a result they pulledback from the task. Both students wrote in their learning logs of their frustration astheir ideas were not accepted. When these students were perceived as more able,they gave more input and feedback to their peers. These observations might suggest150that helping behavior is given by students who appear to be the most able tostudents who appear to be the most needy within a small group setting.The more able students, A and B, were both very verbal within their groups, andexhibited helping behavior but in different ways. Student A appeared to help hisclassmates by directing the task and demanding completion. Student B was muchmore subtle and supportive of her group, encouraging task completion, but alsodemanding perfection. Both types of actions resulted in on-task behavior butStudent B sustained this behavior for longer periods of time. Toward the end ofIntervention Student A was receiving more positive feedback from his peers and thisseemed to keep him on task, whereas Student B was considered to be too much aperfectionist and had more difficulty with her group. Student A appeared not toinclude one of the special needs students in his group, whereas Student B actuallysought to include this student in several group research activities. Most otherstudents in the class followed Student A's lead in excluding this particular specialneeds student. Based on teacher-student discussions and on student learning logs itappeared that the personality of this particular student did not invite friendship.These findings suggest that giving help can encourage on-task behavior and thatreceiving positive feedback may help to sustain this behavior. These findings concurwith Hertz-Lazarowitz's study on peer interaction and helping behavior (1989) thatsuggests both giving and receiving help is important for achievement. The data inthis study also suggest that the way in which students communicate with each othercan be important to establish the norm of reciprocity, particularly at this earlyadolescent stage. Students appeared to respond to a more direct approach andbecame more involved in the task, especially if this direction was given by classleaders as this pattern of communication became the acceptable norm. This style of151communication seemed to be more lively and appealing to these young adolescents.These findings support Mandel's study (1991) in which he states that communicationpatterns and leadership styles affect cooperative learning groups.Attitudes Toward Learning And SchoolThe major findings from the data indicated that cooperative learning generallyencourages positive attitudes toward learning. This goal structure appeared toinfluence intrinsic orientation in the classroom that resulted in increased motivation.Student gender and ability, as well as students' perception of self and acceptance byothers, were also taken into account when discussing these results.Student MotivationBased on the results of the pre- and posttests of the Harter Scale of  Intrinsic VersusExtrinsic Orientation In The Classroom (Harter, 1980) which was shown in Table 5,the students in this study showed significant gains in their classroom orientation.Analyzing the results according to a two factor solution (Table 7), the gain appearedin the motivational components of the Scale. When the five subscales or dimensionsof the Scale were taken separately, three of the five dimensions, Curiosity, Mastery,and Criteria showed significant results (Table 5). Gender analysis was slightlydifferent and will be discussed later in the chapter. Based on Harter's study (1980)as students proceed through the grades their motivation and intrinsic orientationdecrease until they reach Grades 6 or 7, and then levels out in the middle years.Conversely, students' informational components increase as students become moreknowledgeable and capable of making judgements. The findings in this study wouldindicate a deviation from the norm and suggest that the intervention of cooperative152learning may be an effective strategy for increasing young adolescents' intrinsicorientation in the classroom, thus increasing their motivation toward learning. Thisfinding should be the basis for a further study using a larger sample.Harter has found that perceived cognitive competence is strongly related to themotivational components of the Scale, and higher order factoring reveals PerceivedCognitive Competence, Challenge, Curiosity, and Mastery have extremely highloadings: .76, .87, .70, and .80 respectively. Since the motivational components arerelated to a student's sense of competence in the class it would follow that studentswho increase their motivational scores would have a greater sense of competence,and this in turn, would enhance their feelings of self-worth. The class results wouldindicate that students who engaged in cooperative learning and increased theirmotivational scores on the Harter Scale may have acquired a greater sense ofcognitive competence and self-worth as a result of the described Intervention.In this study the class as a whole was relatively intrinsically oriented prior toIntervention and maintained this orientation throughout the study. The statisticallysignificant results in the motivational component suggest that after treatment thestudents preferred to satisfy their own interests (Curiosity) and to work or figure outproblems on their own (Mastery). If motivation is related to cognitive competence,some explanations might be posed. As students worked cooperatively cognitiverestructuring took place, one student explaining to another. Not only would thisrestructuring of information facilitate knowledge, but also it could trigger curiosityabout others' points of view. Since the students worked with each other and wereencouraged to make decisions and arrive at consensus they also became more adeptat problem solving without the teacher's intervention. This independent problemsolving may have enhanced the students' preference for Mastery.153It is interesting to speculate as to why these students did not significantly increasetheir Preference For Challenge scores. Based on Harter's analysis of grade levelorientation patterns, young adolescents at this stage are borderlineintrinsically/extrinsically oriented and maintain this pattern for several years. Thestudents in this class appeared to reflect this pattern in this particular component ofthe Scale. The findings may suggest that students working cooperatively haveenjoyed the social challenge of group activities, and believe that sharing theworkload reduced their conception of the task's challenge. Harter also maintainsthat students may exhibit more intrinsic orientation in some components of the scaleand not in others. She also suggests that intrinsic/extrinsic orientations may bedomain specific. Thus, students in this study may have been intrinsically challengedin the social domain but not in the academic domainOn the Informational Components of the Scale, the students in this classsignificantly increased their intrinsic orientation on Criteria but not on IndependentJudgement. Criteria suggests that students know when they have succeeded withoutrelying on feedback from the teacher. A cooperative learning goal structureprovides immediate feedback to the students functioning within a small groupsetting. This information validates or negates students' perceptions of competence,and the students are able to adjust their output accordingly. Since peer feedbackand acceptance is extremely important, students were encouraged to adjust theirresponses accordingly. This pattern of giving and receiving information couldfacilitate an increased awareness of personal competence. Conversely, if studentsmust rely on acceptance of ideas by the group, they might feel that their personaljudgement is dependent on others' feedback and these students might not be as154confident in making decisions, particularly if the communication is given in anegative manner.Gender. The gender results of the pre- and posttests of the Harter Scale(Table 6), prior to implementing the cooperative learning model, indicate that themale students in this class were marginally intrinsically oriented on the motivationalcomponents of Challenge and Mastery and extrinsically oriented in Curiosity.Informational components showed intrinsic orientation. After Intervention, thesemale students gained significantly in the motivational components of Curiosity andMastery. The informational components showed slight increases. Female studentsshowed intrinsic motivation in all five components of the Scale. These findings arecontrary to Boggiano's findings (1991) that indicated female intermediate studentswere more extrinsically oriented in the classroom. However, following Interventionthe female students made significant gains in the informational components ofCriteria and marginal gains in the motivational component of Curiosity.The results of the present study indicate that males and females, based on theirclassroom orientations, reacted differently to the intervention of cooperativelearning. This goal structure appeared to increase motivation for male students tosatisfy their own interests and to seek to solve problems on their own, whereas forfemale students the intervention maintained their intrinsic orientation butencouraged a greater degree of self-knowledge regarding personal success. Glassar(1990) has stated that a shift in the locus of control enhances intrinsic motivation.Since cooperative learning encouraged students to make decisions about their tasks,the locus of control passed from teacher to student, and may have fostered intrinsicmotivation in the students, more so in the males than in the females as the femaleswere quite motivated to start. The cooperative learning model also provided155students with immediate feedback and this may have fostered a greater sense ofpersonal knowledge of success, particularly for female students who were dominatedand often overtly "put down" by the very outgoing male leaders in the class. Thefemales' gain in personal awareness would support the findings of Croniger (1991)that suggested that female students performed better in cooperative learning groupsthan in whole class settings. It is interesting to note that of the students selected forcase study the only students who made positive gains in all five dimensions of theScale were two female students of medium and low ability, Student D and StudentF.Student ability. Based on the results of the pre- and posttests of the HarterScale and on the personal profiles plotted in each of the six case studies it wouldappear that students of high, medium, and low ability showed positive gains in theirintrinsic classroom orientation and motivation toward learning after the interventionof cooperative learning. This would indicate an increased sense of competence foreach ability level. The high ability students were more intrinsically oriented thanthe other ability students prior to Intervention and maintained this orientation afterthe cooperative learning treatment. Both medium ability students madeconsiderable gains from extrinsic to intrinsic orientations when cooperative learningwas implemented and the effect changed their personal profiles considerably (seeCase Studies Student C and Student D). In the low ability grouping the femalestudent gained more significantly than did the male student as she moved from theextrinsic domain to intrinsic orientation in the motivational components. Since thisstudent received a great deal of support from her peers her sense of competenceconsiderably increased. (This observation is supported by her personal comments inher learning log.) These findings would concur with Johnson et al (1990), Margoliset al (1990), and Slavin (1991) that cooperative learning is effective with all ability156levels and would support Cromwell's study (1991) that suggests low achievingstudents feel positively about themselves when working in a cooperative learningmodel.Student self-perception. Based on individual case studies and data collectedfrom the Harter Scale and from informal descriptive measures (as outlined inChapter Three), it appears that in this class students who exhibit a positive sense ofself and are accepted by others are intrinsically oriented and more motivated towardlearning. Generalizability is limited by the six cases studied and further researchneeds to be conducted using a larger sample.Prior to the intervention of cooperative learning, Students A, B, and E felt quitegood about themselves and their orientations generally were intrinsic in all five ofthe motivational and informational components. Students C, D, and F tended to befollowers and registered either on the borderline or extrinsically in at least two ofthe five components of the Scale. Following Intervention all students showed gainsin the intrinsic domain. These students, with the exception of Student E, allindicated more positive feelings about self and peers on the criterion exercise, TheStory (Appendix E). As Harter (1981) stated, the subscale scores are highlypredictive of personal competence. If these students increased their subscale scoresthen their perceived competence must also have increased. It could be concludedthat the intervention of cooperative learning did affect the subscale scores, andtherefore affected students' perceived competence. Brewer et al (1988) found aparallel relationship between rewards and locus of control activities that increaseone's perceived competence and increased motivation. Since small group work gaveimmediate feedback to students, their intrinsic interest was enhanced and personalcompetencies were perceived. This observation would support Bandura's theory157(1982) of self-efficacy in that students perceiving greater self-worth cope better andare able to achieve more.Learning In GroupsSince the essence of cooperative learning is students working together to maximizeeach others' learning the effect of the group is of paramount importance whendiscussing student attitudes toward learning. In the present study the groupcomposition, the interaction of group members, and student attitudes toward grouplearning are factors to be considered. Discussion of findings is limited to the sixstudents selected for case studies, however whole class comments from the  WorkPreference Questionnaire  (Appendix D) will add to the data on students' preferencefor learning structures.Group composition. The decisions made by the researcher regarding theformation of the cooperative groups appeared to be important to the functioning ofthe groups and had an impact on students' attitudes. Initially the male students weremore concerned about isolation from their friends and reacted negatively both inactions and in writing (as evidenced in the learning logs). The female students didnot seem as concerned about separation from their friends and accepted theirplacements without comments, although both genders reacted negatively toplacement with one of the special needs students. The physical separation of groupswas also an important factor for male group members tended to interact betweengroups and be drawn off task if they were seated in proximity to their friends. Asthe study progressed these groups appeared to be more cohesive. The students alsoliked having the opportunities for random groupings and knew their base groupswould be changed after a certain period of time. Their attitudes toward the second158base group formation were vastly different, and the researcher and interrater noteda definite change. Just before changing base groups the teacher had students sittingin the traditional row formation and this resulted in students asking for groupplacement againThe makeup of the group appeared to have an effect on student behavior, personalmotivation and attitude. Students who were placed with very supportive memberswrote positively about their experiences, while conversely lack of support producednegative responses. This placement was particularly important for the low abilitystudents. Student F grew in confidence and spent more time on task as she wasencouraged by her peer group. Her counterpart, Student E, did not receive muchsupport from his peers and his attitude became quite negative as he withdrew fromactivities. The heterogeneous mix worked well for most students, although thefemale medium ability student felt left out at times. It is interesting to speculatewhy Student C, the male student of medium ability, did not feel the same way. Inpart, this could have been due to the fact that the high achiever in his first basegroup was the class isolate, and therefore Student C received more attention as theleader of the group.The researcher also noted that special needs students and English as SecondLanguage (ESL) students had an effect on students' attitudes toward the learningtasks. At first the high ability students were concerned that they would not be ableto achieve well if the ESL students could not give them enough information,particularly in a Jigsaw activity, and these achievers tended to take over the learningof these ESL students. The medium and low ability students did not feel the sameanxiety. The negativism toward one special needs student appeared to be based onthis student's personality and ability, for the students complained to the researcher159that this student didn't do much, liked to boss others around, and said that she was"special". These problems decreased when the teacher assured the students thatthey would not be penalized for any student's inability to perform tasks. Based onthese observations it could be concluded that students' attitudes toward workingwith others may be affected by the composition of the group, particularly whenstudents are first introduced to cooperative learning.Group interaction. The makeup of the group may initially have been acontributing factor to group interaction. However, as students became moreproficient in using cooperative learning, communication styles and social skillsbecame more important factors in determining attitudes toward learning within thisgoal structure. Students who received positive feedback from their group matesmade positive comments in their learning logs. Conversely, negative feedbackresulted in negative comments about peers and the cooperative activity. Thisobservation appeared to be true for five of the six case studies although studentswith low self-esteem were more greatly affected than those exhibiting high self-esteem. The exception to this observation was Student A, the leader of the class. Itappeared that this student felt so confident about his abilities and peer acceptancethat he was not affected by the interaction of the group. In part, this could be due tothe fact that he directed most of the group's interaction, was rarely challenged on hisinput, and therefore did receive positive feedback. Also he was more concernedabout group composition than about group functioning. Solomon et al (1990) foundthat poor quality interactions resulted in negative attitudes. The findings in thisstudy would concur with those results.Based on these students' learning logs and specific needs of group functioning socialskills were taught and group processing was encouraged. These had an effect on160encouraging positive attitudes toward learning within this goal structure. At firststudents reacted negatively when ideas were not accepted because they did not havethe necessary skills to question or to criticize constructively. The researcher notedthat as roles and skills were introduced in a gradual manner the groups appeared tofunction more smoothly and stay on task for longer periods of time. The rolesseemed to provide a legitimate vehicle for the students' communication. Theresearcher also noted that students liked to process and discuss their groupfunctioning at the end of activities, both in written and in verbal format. Theteacher often reminded students of the processing results before the nextcooperative activity began. This seemed to act as a springboard to focus on the taskand the students proceeded positively into the activity. Their learning logs showedan improvement in attitudes as the study progressed. Therefore, it could beconcluded that the teaching of the social skills and incorporating group processinghelped to improve student attitudes toward cooperative learning activities. Cohen(1986) and Huber and Eppler (1990) also found that students improved their groupfunctioning over time when they incorporated social skills and Mandel (1990) foundthat group debriefing enhanced positive interactions.Preference for group work. Prior to the intervention of cooperative learning,and based on the results of the Work Preference Questionnaire, 96% of the studentsin this class preferred to work cooperatively as opposed to working alone. Of these58% preferred group work. After Intervention 93% of the students preferredcooperative work to solitary work and 64% of these students chose group work.One male student preferred solitary work prior to and at the conclusion ofIntervention. The only change from cooperative to solitary work preference wasStudent B. Student E also changed his preference from group work to partner work.As mentioned both these students experienced negative interactions within their161groups, and although they improved their on-task behavior they developed negativefeelings for group work. All other students selected for case study preferredcooperative group work after Intervention. These results indicate that most youngadolescents in this class prefer to work with others when assigned tasks but thatsome experiences within the groups may cause negative attitudes toward grouplearning. Because of the small n, the slight change in group work preference isinteresting yet inconclusive. Perhaps of more value are the reasons for youngadolescents choosing to work with others.Based on the written responses from the Work Preference Questionnaire and thestudent learning logs the following list is a compilation of reasons for preferringcooperative group work. Students felt that they:* can help each other* can share the job* can get new ideas in a whole new way* like giving help not just receiving help* find it easier to learn social skills* have fun* get to know a person better and accept themThe most common thread that seemed to appear in all student responses was thatstudents "got a lot of ideas and got to talk about the subject." As one student so aptlywrote, "It (group work) let's you be together with people - not alone in a small crowd."Another student wrote of group work as a motivator, "We knew we had to get thingsdone."Students who preferred partner work to group work gave the following reasons:* some people boss you around162* it's hard reaching agreement with lots of people* it's easier to take turns with two* with two you must agree or you can't finish the jobThe two students who preferred to work alone felt it was easier to rely only onthemselves and they didn't have to share.The present study is an exploratory study, and therefore conclusions may only berepresentative of the population selected for study. However, based on the resultspresented in this study of young adolescents the following conclusions can be made:1. Cooperative learning increases the time-on-task behavior in both male andfemale young adolescents, regardless of academic ability levels.2. Time-on-task behavior is affected by the quality of student interactionwithin a group.3. Cooperative learning encourages positive attitudes toward learning,although not all students prefer to work within a cooperative learning goalstructure.4. Cooperative learning increases the intrinsic orientation of youngadolescents within the classroom.5. Cooperative learning may be one factor in increasing male adolescents'intrinsic orientation in the classroom, in that it enables them to satisfy theirown interests and seek to solve problems on their own.6. Cooperative learning may be one factor in increasing female adolescents'intrinsic orientation in the classroom, in that it enables them to recognizetheir personal success.7. The quality of student interactions within a group is a factor indetermining the formation of attitudes toward learning within acooperative learning goal structure.1638. The teaching and learning of social skills is a factor in determining thequality of interaction within cooperative learning groups.Recommendations For Further ResearchBased on the findings of this exploratory study further data are needed to documentthe effect that cooperative learning has on the on-task behavior and on the attitudestoward learning of young adolescents. In addition to increasing the sample size, thedata may be gained by duplicating this study in different ways. Since most theobservations were made in the Language Arts, data could be gathered in anothersubject area such as the sciences. As young adolescence spans several years a studycould be conducted using a different grade level or age group. Also the design ofthe present study could be used in a middle school rather than in an elementaryschool. It would be interesting to compare the results of a study conducted in twodifferent classes taught by the same teacher or a study conducted by two differentteachers in the same subject area.Documenting the effect of the teacher's role in determining on-task behavior andformation of attitudes within a cooperative learning goals structure is also needed.This could be accomplished by using an additional observer to record teacherbehaviors such as introducing cooperative processes, monitoring group functioning,and adjusting cooperative skills as needed.Additional research might provide data that would indicate whether time-on-taskbehaviors can be sustained or maintained. Studies that would extend the length ofIntervention or interrupt Intervention would provide this information.164The composition of the class in the present study may have affected the data results.Different class compositions could be used with the present design. For example,mixed ability groupings but same gender cooperative groups could be used. On-taskbehavior and attitude formation within these groups might be compared to the samebehavior in mixed gender groupings. English as Second Language students could bethe subjects selected and gender and ability levels variables studied. In the presentstudy attitudes toward working with two special needs students appeared to bedifferent. Further research documenting the behavior of different special needsstudents and the attitudes of other group members could provide valuable data.How to integrate different special needs students into cooperative learningsituations is an important research question.Although the behaviors of students was included as data in the present study,personality as a variable was not studied. The present design could be used togather data on the effect of student personalities as they affect time-on-taskbehavior and attitudes toward learning in a cooperative goal structure.Implications For TeachersBoth quantitative and qualitative data presented in this study provide evidence thatmay suggest implications for teachers using the cooperative learning goal structure.Based on this evidence, the following recommendations are made regarding theformation of cooperative learning groups, the structure of the cooperative learningtasks, and the role of the teacher in a cooperative learning goal structure:Group Formation1. Structure cooperative learning base groups carefully.1652. Provide supportive members for those students experiencing low self-esteem.3. Provide opportunities for flexible random groupings.4. Allow enough time for groups to establish cohesiveness.5. Change base groups after a reasonable period of time.6. Do not force students to sit together all the time.Task Structure1. Introduce cooperative learning gradually in order to ensure success of theassigned tasks.2. Use simple cooperative tasks first, such as pairing and sharing.3. Introduce cooperative processes in a sequential manner from the simplerconcrete roles of forming groups and recording information to the morecomplex abstract skills of constructive criticism and student division oflabor.4. Allow enough repetition of cooperative processes to ensure success.5. Restructure the teaching of cooperative processes when needed.6. Allow time for both verbal group processing and individual writtenprocessing in learning logs.Teacher's Role1.Be an active participant/observer.2. Monitor group functioning regularly.3. Process teacher observations with the students, particularly positiveobserved behaviors.4. Teach expected social skills and cooperative processes prior to cooperativelearning tasks, and be prepared to reteach these processes as needed.5. Use students' processing information to teach cooperative processes.1666. Prepare visual material of cooperative learning processes and referstudents to this material as needed for effective group functioning.7. Be prepared to relinquish control over group functioning in a gradual,sequential way.8. Acknowledge that not all students enjoy cooperative learning and employother goal structures.Of paramount importance is teachers' awareness of quality of interaction betweenpeers. This interaction appears to affect individual and group functioning which inturn may influence on-task behavior and motivation for learning. It is stronglyrecommended that teachers be active in the process of cooperative learning.This has been a study investigating the effect that a cooperative learning goalstructure had on the on-task behavior and formation of attitudes toward learningand school of young adolescents. A quasi-experimental study was conducted on asample of 27 Grade 6 students. Embedded in this study was a detailed case study ofsix individuals. Class results from pre- and posttests were examined to determinestudents' intrinsic or extrinsic orientation in the classroom and to determine thesestudents' motivation for learning. In addition, a non-equivalent time samples designwas used to investigate the on-task behavior of the 6 subjects selected. The dataresults were analyzed using a single case experimental design of Split MiddleMethod Trend Analysis. Additional informal measures and students' journal writingprovided further qualitative data to indicate students' attitudes toward learning andschool. Both gender and academic ability were considered when analyzing results ofthe investigation.167By combining both quantitative and qualitative data, the researcher has been able toanalyze the selected students' on-task behavior and the factors that influenced thatbehavior within a cooperative learning framework. It has been concluded thatcooperative learning increased the on-task behavior of young adolescents, regardlessof ability level, and increased their intrinsic orientation in the classroom, thusaffecting their motivation and attitudes toward learning and school. Gender specificdata revealed that males' and females' orientation in the classroom was affecteddifferently.This data presented in this study provided documentation for quality of interactionbetween peers as it influeneces effective group functioning. The results of thisresearch also recommend to educators the importance of understanding the factorsthat influence young adolescents' learning, particularly within a cooperative learningframework..168REFERENCESAdelson, J. (Ed.). (1980). Handbook of adolescent psychology. Toronto, Ont: JohnWiley & Sons.Aronson, E., Blaney, N., Stephen, E., Sikes, J., & Snapp, M. (1978). The jigsawclassroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy: mechanism in human agency. AmericanPsychologist, 37(2), 122-147.Becker, H. J. (1990). Curriculum and instruction in the middle grades. Phi DeltaKappan, 71(6), 450-457.Berndt, T. J., & Ladd, G. W. (1989). Peer relationship in child development. NY:John Wiley & Sons.Boggiano, A. (1991). Mastery motivation in boys and girls: The role of intrinsicversus extrinsic motivation. Sex Roles: A Journal Of Research, 25(9),511-520. (From ERIC Abstracts, 1991, No. EJ 438662)Brewer, E. W., Dunn, J 0., & Olszewski, P. (1988). Extrinsic reward and intrinsicmotivation: The vital link between classroom management and studentperformance. Journal Of Education For Teaching, 14(2), 151-170.Canadian Achievement Tests (1982). Scarborough, Ont: Canadian TestCentre/McGraw-Hill Ryerson Ltd.Carnegie Task Force On Education Of Young Adolescents (1989) Turning points:Preparing American youth for the 21st century. NY: CarnegieCorporation.Cohen, E. (1986). Designing groupwork: Strategies for the heterogeneousclassroom. NY: Teachers College Press.Cohen, E. (1990). Continuing to cooperate: prerequisites to persistence. Phi DeltaKappan, 76(2), 134-136.Croniger, B. (1991). The social context of schooling: What research and theory cantell us. Intercultural Development Research Association Newsletter,18(5), 10-14. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 334 051)Cronwell, C. (1988, November). Students' perceptions when working in cooperativeproblem solving groups. Paper presented at the North Carolina ScienceTeachers Association Convention, Asheville, NC. (ERIC DocumentReproduction Service, No. Ed 313 455)Desjarlais, L., & Rackauskas, J. (1986). Adolescent development. Ministry OfEducation, Ont: Queen's Printer.169Dixon, W. (Ed.) (1988). BMDP statistical software manual to accompany the 1990software release. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Epstein, J. (1990). What matters in the middle grades - grade span or practices?Phi Delta Kappan, 71(6), 438-444.Epstein, J., & Salinas, K. (1991). New directions in the middle grades. ChildhoodEducation, 67(5), 285-291.Feeny, S. (1980). Schools for young adolescents: Adapting the early childhoodmodel. Carboro, NC: Center For Early Adolescents.Glassar, W. (1990). The quality school. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 425-435.Graves, T. (1990). Non-academic benefits of cooperative learning. CooperativeLearning, 10(3), 16-17.Graves, T. (1991). The controversy over group rewards in cooperative classrooms.Educational Leadership, 48(7), 77-79.Harter, S. (1980). A scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom.Denver, CO: University Of Denver (Colorado Seminary).Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation inthe classroom: motivational and informational components.Developmental Psychology, 17(3), 300-312.Hersen, M., & Barlow, D. H. (1976). Single-case experimental designs: Strategiesfor studying behavior change. NY: Pergamon Press.Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1989). Cooperation and helping in the classroom: Acontextual approach. International Journal Of Educational Research, 13(1),113-120.Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1990, April). An integrative model of the classroom: Theenhancement of cooperative learning. Paper presented at the AnnualMeeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 322 121)Huber, G. L., & Eppler, R. (1990). Team learning in German classrooms: Processand outcomes. In S. Sharan (Ed.) Cooperative Learning: Theory AndResearch. NY: Praeger.Instructional Objectives Exchange (1972). Attitude toward school. Los Angeles,CA.Johnson, D. W. (1981). Student-student interaction: The neglected variable ineducation. Educational Researcher, 10, 5-10.Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1974). Instructional goal structure: Cooperative,competitive, or individualistic. Review Of Educational Research, 44( ),213-240.170Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Toward a cooperative effort. EducationalLeadership, 46(7), 80-81.Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Social skills for successful group work.Educational Leadership, 47(4), 29-33.Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. (1986). Circles of learning:Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. (1990). Cooperation in theclassroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.Johnson, D. W., Maruyana, G., Johnson, R. T., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects ofcooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures onachievement: a meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89(1), 47-62.Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative learning. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Resources ForTeachers, Inc.Kagan, S. (1990). The structural approach to cooperative learning. EducationalLeadership, 47(4), 12-15.Leming, J. S. (1985). School curriculum and social development in earlyadolescence. NASSP, 61(4), 257-262.Lipsitz, J. (1984). Successful schools for young adolescents. New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Books.Lyman, L. (1989, October). Teaching geography r.iwoffativelearnin . Paperpresented at the Annual Meeting of the Texas Council for the SocialStudies, Richardson, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No.ED 315 349)Maclver, D. J. (1990). Meeting the needs of young adolescents. Phi Delta Kappan,71(6), 458-464.McDaniel, T. R. (1984). A primer on motivation: Principles old and new. Phi DeltaKappan, 66(1), 46-49.McLean, D. L. (1992). Cooperative learning: Theory into practice in the youngchild's classroom. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. 343 667)Madden, N. (1983). Effects of cooperative learning on social acceptance ofmainstreamed academically handicapped students. Journal of SpecialEducation, 17(2), 171-182.Madden, N., & Slavin, R. E. (1989). What works for students at risk: A researchsynthesis. Educational Leadership, 46(5), 4-13.Madden, N. A., Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1986). A comprehensive cooperativelearnin. a s e roach to elementary reading and writing: Effects on studentachievement. Report No. 2. Baltimore, MD: Center For Research OnElementary And Middle Schools, Johns Hopkins University.171Mandel, S. (1991, April). Responses to cooperative learning processes amongelementary age students. Paper presented at the annual conference ofthe American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL. (ERICDocument Reproduction Services, No. ED 332 808)Margolis, H., McCabe, P., & Swartz, E. (1990). Using cooperative learning tomainstream in the social studies. Social Education, 54(2), 111-114.Miller, J. P., & Seller, W. (1990). Curriculum: perspectives and practice, Toronto,Ont: Copp Clark Pitman Ltd.Ministry Of Education, B.C. (1988). Year 2000: A curriculum and assessmentframework for the future, A response to the B.C. Royal Commission onEducation. Victoria, B.C. Educational ProgramsMinistry Of Education, B.C. (1990). Enabling learners: A curriculum andassessment framework for the future. Victoria, BC: Province Of B.C.Educational Programs.Morton, T. (1991). Growing cooperation. Canadian Social Studies,  26(2), 74-77.Myers, D. (1990). Social psychology.(3rd ed.). NT: McGraw-Hill.Myers, J. (1991). Cooperative learning in history and social sciences: An idea whosetime has come. Canadian Social Studies, 26(2), 60-64.Myers, S. (1990). The management of curriculum time as it relates to studentengaged time. Educational Review, 42(1), 13-23.National Association For Secondary School Teachers (1987). An agenda forexcellence at the middle level. Reston, VA: NASSP Publications.Parker, R. E. (1985). Small group cooperative learning: Improving academic, socialgains in the classroom. NASSP, 69,(479), 48-57.Phoenix, K. (1992). Cooperative learning: How does it affect discipline?Unpublished master's thesis, Clarkson College Of Technology, Potsdam,NY. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 348 155)Pratt, D. (1987). Curriculum design as human technology. Journal Of CurriculumStudies, 19(2), 149-162.Prescott, S. (1990). Teachers' perceptions of factors that affect successfulimplementation of cooperative learning. Action In Teacher Education,11(4), 30-34.Royal Commission On Education (1989).  Teaching for thinking. Ministry ofEducation, B.C.: Queen's Printer.Salend, S. J., & Sonnenschein, P. (1989). Validating the effectiveness of acooperative learning strategy through direct observation. Journal OfSchool Psychology, 27(1), 47-58.Santrock, J. W. (1990). Adolescence (4th ed.). Dubuque, IA: W.C. Brown.172Schmuck, R. A., & Schmuck, P. A. (1988). Group processes in the classroom.Dubuque, IA: W.C. Brown.Schultz, J. L. (1989). Cooperative learning: Refining the process. EducationalLeadership, 47(4), 43-45.Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning and small group achievement. In R. E.Slavin (Ed.), School And Classroom Organization. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.Sharan, S., Kussell, R., Bejarano, Y., Raviv, S., & Sharan, Y. (1984). Cooperativelearning in the classroom: Research in desegregated schools. Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.Sharan, S. & Sharan, Y. (1976). Small group teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Educational Technology Reproductions.Sherrod, D. (1982). Social psychology. NY: Random House.Slavin, R. E. (1977). Classroom reward structure: An analytical and practicalreview. Review Of Educational Research, 47(4), 633-650.Slavin, R. E. (1981). Synthesis of research in cooperative learning. EducationalLeadership, 38(8), 655-660.Slavin, R. E. (1983a). Cooperative learning. NY: Longman.Slavin, R. E. (1983b). Student team learning. Washington, DC: NEA ProfessionalLibrary.Slavin, R. E. (1985). Cooperative learning: Applying contact theory in thedesegregated schools. Journal Of Social Issues, 41(3), 45-62.Slavin, R. E. (1987a). Developmental and motivational perspectives on cooperativelearning: a reconciliation. Child Development, 58(5), 1161-1167.Slavin, R. E. (1987b). Cooperative learning: Where behavioral and humanisticapproaches to classroom motivation meet. The Elementary SchoolJournal, 88(1), 29-37.Slavin, R. E. (1989). What works for students at risk: A research synthesis,Educational Leadership, 46(5), 4-13.Slavin, R. E. (1990a). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus andcontroversy. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 52-55.Slavin, R. E. (1990b). Point-counterpoint: Ability grouping, cooperative learning,and the gifted. Journal For Education Of The Gifted, 14(1), 3-7.Slavin, R. E. (1991a). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. EducationalLeadership, 48(5), 71-82.173Slavin, R. E. (1991b). Group rewards make group work work. EducationalLeadership, 48(5), 89-91.Solomon, D., Battistich, V., & Delucchi, K. L. (1990, August). Cooperative learning,intergroup dynamics, and student outcomes. Paper presented at theannual meeting of American Psychologists Association, Boston, MA.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED 326 817)Stevens, R. J., Slavin, R. E., & Famish, A. M. (1987). Cooperative integratedreading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading ResearchQuarterly, 22, 433-454.Strother, D. B. (1984). Another look at time-on-task. Phi Delta Kappan, 65(10),714-717.Strother, D. B. (1990). Cooperative learning: Fad or foundation for learning? PhiDelta Kappan, 72(3), 158-163.Webb, N. M. (1982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review ofEducational Research, 52(3), 421-445.Webb, N. M. (1985). Verbal interaction and learning in peer-directed groups.Theory Into Practice, 24(1), 32-39.Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction, problem solving, and cognition:Multidisciplinary practices. International Journal Of EducationalResearch, 13(1), 1-119.Webb, N. M. & Kenderski, C. M. (1987). Student interaction and learning in smallgroups and whole class settings. In P. Peterson et al (Eds.)  The SocialContext Of Instruction. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Williamson, R., Swingle, P., & Sargent, S. (1982). Social psychology. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock, Inc.174APPENDIX ATIME ON TASKDATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENTTIME ON TASKDateObservation #ACTIVITYTIMETotalz-TimeAC c - • / -- cBCDEF. i1Code: I= on task* = start timeA = off task• = student observedNOTES:OBSERVER175APPENDIX A Continued176TEACHER LOGACTIVITY DESCRIPTION:GENERAL OBSERVATIONS:STUDENTS:QUESTIONS:177APPENDIX BTIME ON TASKDATA COLLECTION INSTRUMENT (completed)TIME ON TASKDate Se. g•ZrObservation # 1A)1ACTIVITY^ O_ • k-of• A^.1.TIME..0^al, TimeA_ .B •*/ ^ e 3 -CDs ^ ^ x "-- /E. IF^• ^ / ^*3 -Code:^^ = on task X = off task* = start time^♦ = student observedNOTES:-^.e.42effax-i■-ee40-et 7a.e-e-,.<-,./^- 42-oA4ta-u24 4-4' -a .1 c41-^,a-r-44-0L4-4-t^ e2-4-0L'"^ ■eLe_^.J,• a■e2-)C■a//14L-LeolOBSERVER  Aj, 4_.178APPENDIX B Continued_4L44A,?^ ■DIC/^fr‘,0-Ce/6-a-7C-Af a+Qt.TEACHER LOG •• •^■G4Le'tk^AZ6-'‘) j./^4 It E-41-daA.^ 71-44a-a. eofri ,9(h. ME-) 4e1-06 yo,o-tGENERAL OBSERVATIONS:^ .4- ,...11) _7,aze. 01/^-,zetz„r,„eit_d.it).—?-e^-e-d4t-e^).STUDENTS:^,Categ)^ -e.Za tr ees 42.CaLAtF^ /atA--r-t -C/tV^/a-rt-e-C4^-ruc--t^/1z7-1-^-10-7G^-^e fa-L/n4t-e12,41^.//LeA.^('fie'tieL-7914/^ e-Z)72-4L-44 /...te,&).vz.LA_7444-Le /fir-,‘-rie-04,^- .QUESTIONS:6—e-d--,ik—/x--& ¢-tc‘,064-6—e--&-ti) .7 .c ^2-rA-Ze—z-4 (ESL,^),/e4ex-e,oL^Ao-r-w aiet-11,, 7 Cc-i.12_2-7/z-et-e-ela,^ ■iL 7.6W2014o, ?ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION:AgeName^Grade Teacher^11En ••••■■• n■••••■■••■■■=11.Some kids like hard workbecause its a challengeWhen some kids don tunderstand somethingright away they want theteacher to tell them theanswerOther kids prefer easyBUT work that they are surethey can doOther kids would ratherBUT try and figure it out bythemselvesLISome kids work on prob-lems to learn how to solvethemOther kids work on prob-BUT lems because you're sup-posed to...■•••■Some kids almost alwaysthink that what theteacher says is 0 KOther kids sometimesBUT think their own ideas arebetterBUTOther kids need to checkwith the teacher to knowif they've made a mistakeBUTOther kids do their school-work to find out aboutalot of things they've beenwanting to knowImm===1,1 n■■■■■■•DI179APPENDIX CA SCALE OF INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC ORIENTATIONIN THE CLASSROOM(Harter, 1980)Sample QuestionsReallyTruefor MeSort ofTruefor MeSome kids would ratherplay outdoors on theirspare timeSome kids like hamburg-ers better than hot dogsOther kids would ratherBUT watch T.V.Other kids like hot dogsBUT better than hamburgers.Sort of^ReallyTrue^Truefor Me for Me7ESome kids know whenthey've made mistakeswithout checking with theteacher6 El ElEl ElSome kids like difficultproblems because theyenjoy trying to figure themoutSome kids do their school-work because the teachertells them toOther kids don't like toBUT^figure out difficultproblemsBirthday (Month) ^ (Day)^Boy or Girl (circle which)(a)(b)In the ClassroomPupil's Form9.1011.12.E■•■■•■11,1718197 Elp1MMMI■11/1.1.■1•1■111,ReallyTruefor Me8.Sort ofTruefor Me111■■■11.1..■10■111. ••■•=111.nn13.14■■■■71516When some kids make amistake they would ratherfigure out the right answerby themselvesSome kids know whetheror not they're doing wellin school without gradesSome kids agree with theteacher because theythink the teacher is rightabout most thingsSome kids don't likedifficult schoolworkbecause they have to worktoo hard.Some kids like to learnthings on their own thatinterest themSome kids read things be-cause they are interestedin the subjectSome kids need to gettheir report cards to tellhow they are doing inschoolIf some kids get stuck ona problem they ask theteacher for helpSome kids like to go onto new work that's at amore difficult levelSome kids think that whatthe teacher thinks of theirwork is the most impor-tant thingSome kids ask questionsin class because they wantto learn new thingsSome kids aren't reallysure if they've done wellon a test until they gettheir papers back with amark on it.1=••■•■■■Sort of^ReallyTrue^Truefor Me^for MeIMM=Mm..1 •■■•■•■■n nn u •••■•■•■11.1■11■■■ I^In n1-1••■•■II■IN■111.n.11■■■11n•■■•111,180APPENDIX C ContinuedOther kids would ratherBUT ask the teacher how toget the right answerOther kids need to havegrades to know how wellthey are doing in schoolOther kids don't agreewith the teacher some-times and stick to theirown opinionOther kids do like difficultschoolwork because theylike to figure things out.Other kids think its betterto do things that theteacher thinks they shouldbe learningOther kids read things be-cause the teacher wantsthem toOther kids know for them-selves how they are doingeven before they get theirreport cardOther kids keep trying tofigure out the problem ontheir ownOther kids would ratherstick to the assignmentswhich are pretty easy todoFor other kids what theythink of their work is themost important thingOther kids ask questionsbecause they want theteacher to notice themOther kids pretty muchknow how well they dideven before they get theirpaper backBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTBUTSort ofTruefor MeReallyTruefor Me.11■111■11•■4.■•■■■11■••••■■■LI EOther kids would first liketo try to understand itthemselves.Other kids think that theteacher should decidewhat work they should doOther kids like thoseschool subjects that makethem think pretty hardand figure things outBUTBUTBUT▪ If a school subject is hardto understand some kidswant the teacher toexplain it to them.Some kids think theyshould have a say in whatwork they do in schoolSome kids like school sub-jects where its pretty easyto just learn the answers.11■••■••1111777Other kids think that theBUT teacher is the best one todecide when to work onthingsOther kids have to wait tilBUT the teacher grades it toknow that they didn't doas well as they could haveOther kids like difficultBUT schoolwork because theyfind It more interestingOther kids like to havethe teacher help them dotheir schoolworkOther kids do schoolworkso they can learn a lot ofinteresting things.BUTBUTAPPENDIX C ContinuedReally^Sort ofTrue^Truefor Me for MeEl ^^ EEl ^17 7• E^ El^ EDISome kids aren't sure iftheir work is really goodor not until the teachertells themSome kids like to try tofigure out how to doschool assignments ontheir ownSome kids are curious andfind that a lot of things^BUTthey can learn in schoolare really interesting.Some kids think its best ifthey decide when to workon each school subjectSome kids know theydidn't do their best on anassignment when theyturn it inSome kids don't like diffi-cult schoolwork becausethey have to work toohardSome kids like to do theirschoolwork without helpSome kids do theirschoolwork because theteacher tells them to.24252627 .2829.30.Other kids are not verycurious about the thingsthey learn in school.o Susan Harter, Ph.D., University of Denver, 1988.1-1181•■■■■■20.21.22.23. 7n n• 7Other kids know if itsBUT good or not before theteacher tells themOther kids would ratherBUT ask the teacher how itshould be doneAPPENDIX DGROUP WORK PREFERENCE QUESTIONNAIREDATE^ NUMBERPeople have different ideas about how group work helps them?^How doyou feel about group work?^The following statements tell about waysin which group work might help some people.^Read each statementcarefully and circle the letter that best describes your opinion atthis time.Not^A Little^Can't^Quite Helps MeHelpful^Helpful Decide^Helpful A LotA B C D 13How much does group work help you...1. Do your best? A^B C D E2. Explore new ideas? A^B C D E3. Understand more about the waysother people think and act? A^B C D E4. Share your ideas? A^B C D E5. Think more clearly? A^B C D E6. Look at your own ideas in different ways? A^B C D E7. Concentrate on the assigned work? A^B C D E8. Solve learning problems? A^B C D E9. Feel good about yourself? A^B C D E10. Learn more about a topic? A^B C D E11. Complete assigned tasks? A^B C D E12. Feel less anxious about schoolwork? A^B C D E13. Make new friends? A^B C D E14. Get out of doing much work? A^B C D E15. Get others' attention? A^B C D E16. Feel more accepted by others? A^B C D E17. Become involved in school? A^B C D E18. Tell others what to do? A^B C D E19. Waste class time? A^B C D E20. Accept others who are not yourpersonal friends? A^B C D E182APPENDIX D ContinuedNUMBERWhen I have work to do I prefer (circle one)1. to work alone2. to work with another person3. to work in a groupbecause183APPENDIX ETHE STORYYou are going to write a true story about yourself and the pupils at your school.You want your story to be realistic. The following list contains things that might betrue about the pupils at your school. Fill in the space labeled "A" if the sentence isone you would include or "B" if you would not include it.For example:^AXA^B1. If a new pupil came to my school s/he could make friends easily. 1.2. The pupils at school like to make friends with many differenttypes of children. 2.3. A child can't make too many friends. 3.4. I feel like part of a group at school. 4.5. I try to act like my friends because they will like me betterif I do. 5.6. My group only makes friends with certain types of children. 6.7. The children in my group treat others fairly. 7.8. It was hard to make friends with the pupils at this school. 8.9. Some children in my group of friends get pushed around. 9.10. My friends at school are nice children. 10.11. Most of the other pupils like me. 11.12. Other pupils bother me in class. 12.13. My friends at school don't like making new friends. 13.14. Other groups of pupils are mean to my friends and me. 14.15. I have a large group of friends at school. 15.16. Most of the pupils at school aren't much fun. 16.184(Instructional Objectives Exchange, 1972)APPENDIX FLESSONS AND STUDENT ACTIVITIESBASELINE PHASEDate^ Lesson/Activity(students observed for Time On Task)^* student activity*** student assessment measures92.09.14^Students were introduced to the short story, "Sixth Grade Can(A, B, C, D, E)^Really Kill You (Wherever You Are, Impressions). Silentreading of the story was assigned.* Students were asked to write their own personal opinionsabout the main character.*** "Circles Of Feelings" (#1) administered to whole class.Students were to illustrate feelings about Reading, Writing,Mathematics, friends, and school.92.09 15^Affective Writing Activity: Teacher engaged students in a(A, B, C, D, E)^discussion about feelings generated upon entering grade six,and about the kinds of students that might be in a class.Students were then given a picture and were asked to identifywith one of the "animal students" in that picture.* Students were assigned a writing activity, whereby, theywould choose one animal most like them and explain theirchoice.*** Picture Identification/"Dear Me" Letter: studentsidentified a character most like them and wrote a letter tothemselves telling why they selected that character.18518692.09.17^The teacher read aloud the ending of the book Randall's Wall(A, B, C, D, E)^(Fenner, C.). The book jacket of this story had been coveredso that students did not know the title nor could they see thecover. A discussion of creating great book titles that wouldcatch the reader's interest ensued.* Students were asked to think of an appropriate title for thisbook based on their aural comprehension.Several overviews of stories were read from book jackets thatthe students had in the classroom. Discussion followed as tothe important elements present in creating an overview (catchyopening, characters presented in problem situations and eventsthey might face, brevity of plot).* Students were asked to write an overview of the story,Randall's Wall, for their own book jacket they would create.Students discussed problems that might arise if one had tomove around from school to school, and reasons for somefamilies having to be on the move. Students were introducedto a new novel, Cowboy's Don't Cry (Halverson, M.). Chapter1 was read with the students and the teacher ensured that thestudents were able to recognize the initial setting, the problem,characters, and the author's flashback technique.* Students were asked to write about the two main characters.* * * The criterion referenced exercise, The Story, wasadministered as a pre-test to indicate students' feelings towardschool and peers.92.09.18(B, D, F)92.09.21(A, C, E)92.09.22(B, D, F)Students initially read a few chapters from the above novel.Discussion centered around the use of specialized vocabularyto help development of setting.* Students engaged in a scanning, skimming exercise to locatespecialized vocabulary and identify the word meanings.18792.09.24(A, C, E)92.09.25)(B, D, F)92.09.29(A, C, E)The students continued to read a few chapters in their classnovel. Discussion focused on Shane, the young adolescentmain character, and his part in an accident. Students wereencouraged to differentiate between fault and blame.* Students were asked to make a judgement as to whether ornot Shane was to blame for the accident and to support theiropinions in a piece of writing.The teacher read from a read aloud book, Park's Quest.* Students responded in their reader response booklet.Poetry Writing: Students were again referred to the feelings ofanger that Shane (Cowboys ...) had. Discussion centered onfeelings of anger building up and what these feeling could becompared to. The concept of a metaphor was introduced andanger was compared to many of the student's suggestions.* Students were asked to choose a metaphor for anger, andwere guided through actions and descriptive words for theirmetaphors. They, then, drafted a free verse poem entitled,"Anger Is ...".18892.09.30^Students read from the class novel and engaged in a discussion(B, D, F)^about Shane's feeling of disappointment at being given giftsinstead of support and love.* Students wrote a letter as the main character, Shane, to hisdad. Students were encouraged to use tone in their writing.* * * Students began to write in their individual learning logs.92.10.02^Students continued to read the class novel. Discussion(A, C, E)^centered on Shane's feeling that "life was unfair" and thatShane wanted more in a dad than he got.* Students generated a list of what they would like in parents.92.10.05(B, D, F)92.10.07(A, C, E)Students read their requests of perfect parents out loud.Discussion about point of view took place, and followed withdiscussion of what parents might look for in perfectadolescents.* Students individually created lists of characteristics thatparents might look for in young adolescents.Students had completed reading the class novel. Teacher andstudents engaged in a discussion of the author's purpose forwriting the story and the underlying idea. The concept of"theme" was discussed, and how some themes were presentedin maxims, or sayings.* Students created a maxim about the novel, Cowboys Don'tCry, and illustrated their work.92.10.08(B, D, F)Sequencing of the story was reviewed and a plot line drawn onthe board.* Students were asked to choose five important events in theplot of the above novel and illustrate these events in asequential manner.18992.10.13(A, C, E)92.10.14(B, D, F)92.10.1592.10.16(A, C, E)The teacher read from the novel,  Park's Quest.* Students were requested to respond in their reader responselogs.A film was shown on the rodeo. Discussion followed about thevarious stakeholders in a rodeo and the treatment of animals.* Students were asked to write a letter to an editor of anewspaper supporting the continuation of rodeos ordemanding that they be stopped.* * * The Harter Scale of  Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic OrientationIn The Classroom (Harter, 1980) was administered as a pre-test.Teacher read the novel Park's Quest.* Students responded in their reading logs.* * * The Work Preference Questionnaire was administered as apre-test.APPENDIX GINTERVENTION PHASEDate^ Lesson/Activity(students observed for Time On Task)^* student activity^** cooperative skills*** student assessment92.10.20^Students were given a "sort and classify" activity to introduce(A, B, C, D, E, F) the mirror novels (listed in the appendix). Each group ofstudents received a list of vocabulary words to be classified intofive categories (to be determined by each group).* Students worked together to put words into categories agreedupon by the group. A title must be given for each category.** Students were introduced to the meaning of the "rhubarblevel" - keeping voices to a 30 cm level. Quiet movement tocollect materials was also stressed.92.10.21^The categories formed from last day's activity were discussed.(A, B, C, D, E, F) Students were asked to use their activity results from last dayto predict a story line.* Students would work in the same groups and use theircategories generated to formulate a story. Each student in thegroup must give one idea before the story plot was decided.Students were encouraged to "lean into" the group to keep thestory line a secret.190** Forming Groups: rhubarb level; moving to group quietlyand staying with the group; materials collector.92.10.23^Reading for content: Students were given "junior" newspaper(A, B, C, D, E, F) articles on the Referendum Question. After initialintroduction and vocabulary development, all students readmaterial for a general overview of the topic. Then, studentsnumbered off 1-4 and specific roles or tasks were assigned.* students #1-2 were to reread and present specific parts of thematerial to their group; students #3-4 were to preparequestions to clarify content.** Before the content reading began, the teacher gave a lessonon Clarification: what it is; when it is needed. A T-Chart wasdeveloped to show what it "looked like" and "sounded like".Forming groups: as before; roles of presenters, clarifiers.92.10.26(A, C, F)Reading for content: Teacher presented information of theReferendum Question and some historical background to thisissue. After class discussion, the students were given anopportunity to gain more detailed information from severalbrief articles that would be assigned.* Students numbered off 1 - 5, then were assigned short articlesto read corresponding to their number. After initial reading,students joined another student with the same number toclarify and practice the material to prepare for grouppresentation.191** Forming groups: as before; individual accountability andclarification was stressed.92.10.28(B, C, E)Students read chapters from their mirror novels. Teacher andstudents engaged in a discussion about mixed feelings onemight have toward another person, and the mixed feelings thenovels' main characters were experiencing.** Within the group, students each were assigned a study of themain character and his relation to another character in thenovel. This information was compiled to form a groupparagraph.** Forming groups stressing individual accountability;Functioning groups - seeking clarification; recorder role.92.11. 02(A, B, C)Reading and reviewing content material: after initial review ofmain ideas on the Referendum Question, students numberedof and were given a specific section of material to review andmaster.* Johnsons' "Preparation Pairs" strategy was used for studentsto prepare and practice their assigned content reading.** Since more movement was required, Forming groups wasstressed. Students also needed to clarify and plan material(Functioning, Formulating).19292.11.03^The teacher discussed the concept of the Jig-Saw strategy,(D, E, F)^putting pieces together. Students were directed to formlearning groups consisting of each number assigned last day.193* All students, in turn, presented to their group the informationthey had learned the previous day.** Forming groups; Functioning groups: A director and atimekeeper was assigned to ensure everyone had equal time;Formulating groups: students were asked to summarize eachothers' material.92.11.04(A, D, E, F)92.11.06Content reading review: This was an activity designed to seewhether students had mastered the skills required for Forminggroups. The students were to circulate as five groups aroundthe room, stopping at stations to "web out" a key word providedat that station. Each group would have only 3 min. at eachstation.* Students moved to each station and wrote on a large sheet ofpaper, content ideas based on the key word presented. At asignal, they moved on, through the next stations.** Forming groups.*** A Cooperative Checklist, #1, (Johnson et al, 1990) wasadministered for students to indicate how they perceive theirindividual cooperation within working groups.A lesson was given on Encouragement: what it is; when it couldbe used. A T-Chart was prepared showing what it "looks like"and "sounds like". Students in each group were assigned asection of their novels to scan for information that might tellabout the main character.92.11.12(B, D, E)* Each student in the group wrote down details about thecharacters' actions and thoughts. The students then shared theinformation within their group and, together, they preparedone character representation - a design of the group's choosing.(Everyone's ideas must be present in the product.)** Forming; Functioning: encouraging; Formulating: seekingelaboration in supporting details.194Collaborative writing activity: Based on the detailed analysisand representation from last day's activity, students in eachgroup were to collaborate on a character sketch.* Each student within the group was to prepare a fewsentences about the character based on the section of the novels/he scanned for detail. The group must included at least onesentence from each person. One product per group waspresented.** Functioning groups: supporting and accepting ideas;offering to explain ideas; roles of recorder, director.* * * Affective assessment: Students wrote a "Letter To Myself'indicating how they felt about school and learning.Students were given further direction for clarifying andrestating purposes of assignments. Several activity scenarioswere presented from the novels and students practisedclarifying and restating purpose of these activities. * Students,then, were to continue working on a group writing activity92.11.13(B, C, F)92.11.16(A, D, E)195about their novel. They were to employ the writing process ofrewriting, editing, and proofreading for a finished product.** Functioning: directing and restating purpose; Formulating:seeking elaboration and sharing conversation.92.11.18^The teacher gave a mini lesson on the skill of supporting others(A, C, E)^by accepting their answers. A T-Chart was constructed toidentify what this skill "looks like" and "sounds like".The teacher read a storybook to the class and engaged studentsin a discussion of the main character's attributes (positivetraits)..* Students randomly numbered off and grouped into triads.Each group selected a classmate's name from a box andworked together to web out that person's attributes.** Forming: no put downs; Functioning: supporting andaccepting.92.11.20^* * * Circles Of Feelings was administered for a second time.92.11.23(B, D, F)After initial introductions of specialized vocabulary andpurpose for reading, students were given content reading topreview and prepare for discussion that would clarify directionsfor an experiment.* Students individually read material, then, were randomlygrouped into triads to discuss procedures for conducting theexperiment.** Forming; Functioning: stating directions and clarifyingprocedures; Formulating: summarizing out loud; roles ofdirector, clarifier, recorder, presenter.92.11.25(B, D, F)A mini lesson was given on Prioritizing as the class tried toreach a consensus on the use of "free time". Fluency of ideasbefore decision making was stressed. Students were toprioritize events of a story to develop a succinct plot line.* Students in each group were individually given a differentsection of their novels to read and to choose two importantevents. Then, students listed all events as a group and had toprioritize a limited number of events to include in the plot line.** Formulating: seeking accuracy of detail, vocalizing;consensus and decision making.92.11.27(B, C, E)The Sociogram as a technique for studying characters wasreviewed. Students identified the characters in their novel.Each of these characters and their relationship to the centralcharacter were to be assigned for in-depth study by a groupmember.* Students each chose a relationship to pursue and scanned thenovel for detail. Then, the group produced a sociogramincorporating all ideas.** A mini lesson on formal observation was taught. Roles tobe used were listed and the students divided the roles upamong their group members. Functioning: supporting,196accepting, seeking help; directing work; formal observation andfeedback to the group.92.12.01(E, D, F)A mini lesson was given on observation versus perception, andon accepting data given. Students practised severalhypothetical scenarios.The attribute web was reviewed and students were to design arepresentation of the novel's main character incorporating allattributes.* Students within their group individually focused on one areaof attributes (intelligence etc.). Together the group agreedupon a design, representing the novel, to incorporate all ideas.** Functioning: accepting; Formulating: elaboration:Fermenting; incorporating ideas into a single position.92.12.02(B, C, E)A lesson was given on comparison and contrast. An initialdiscussion about the two main characters in the mirror novelstook place. Since students had been paired as secret pen palsthroughout these novel studies, they would now be introducedand begin to work together.* Each student prepared a list of characteristics of their penpal character.. Then, the students joined their pen pal andcompleted a Venn diagram of two interlocking circles tocompare and contrast their novels' main characters.** Forming and Functioning skills to date; Formulating:seeking accuracy by correcting and adding information.19719892.12.03^A lesson was given on writing comparative and contrasting(A, D, F)^sentences.* Students were to join their pen pal and, based on the Venndiagram prepared last day, write a cooperative paragraphcomparing and contrasting the novels' characters.** Formulating: seeking elaboration; Fermenting: integratingideas into a single position.92.12.07^A social skill's lesson was taught on stating feelings, particularly(A, C, E)^when one felt their ideas were being rejected. Studentspractised this skill in several scenarios generated from theirinterests.* Students were to plan a party. Each group was given someaspect of the party to plan.** Functioning: stating feelings; Fermenting: criticize ideas notpeople92.12.11^The Cooperative Checklist (Johnson et al, 1990) wasadministered for a second time.Students have been moved to new base groups93.01.14^Students had engaged in previous discussion regarding the(A, C, E)^aspects of Fermenting skills. They would be given anopportunity to use these skills to represent their contentreading in a group project.* Students read individually assigned material about the moon.In each cooperative group they planned for and designed arepresentation of this knowledge.** Fermenting: integrating, probing, extending knowledge.93.01.15(B, D, F)Students had read myths of their own choosing. A lesson wastaught on writing conversation. Discussion centered onconversations that the gods might have had with each other.* Within groups, each student chose a mythological character.The groups planned a meeting of these various gods and,together, wrote the conversation that might have occurred.** Fermenting: integration of ideas; testing reality by checking.93.01.20^Students read their own myths. A review lesson was given on(A, C, E)^Processing and choosing a focus for the group. Students wereencouraged to choose a skill upon which to focus for thisactivity.* Students were asked to plan an outing for the gods. Eachstudent decided on a god to include and the outing must matchthe various gods' interests.** Fermenting skills as taught.93.01.25^Students had viewed the myth, Daedalus. Discussion centered(B, D, F)^on this god's character as seen through his actions andthoughts. Elaboration was reviewed and applied to a characterweb of Daedalus.199200* Students were each to think of Zeus in a myth they read andlist character traits inferred from that myth. As a group, thestudents created a character web of Zeus.** Formulating: seeking accuracy, elaborating; Fermenting:incorporating ideas.93.01.26^Content reading application. Students individually reviewed,(A, C, E)^by reading, information on the Solar System. They randomlyformed groups by numbering.* Each group proceeded through various stations in aBrainstorm Carousel to web information on key words given ateach station. Each student in the group must write somethingbefore anyone had a second turn.** Forming and Formulating skills were used.93.01.28^Students individually read myths. The purpose and format of(B, D, F)^want ads was reviewed with students. Several different adswere given to each group.* Students read the ads and decided which god might write thead. Students integrated their ideas into composing a new wantad for one of the gods.** Functioning: accepting; Fermenting new ideas.93.02.02^Students continued to read myths. The concept of a job(A, C, E)^description was taught. Several scenarios were presentedbased on jobs the students might have and a job descriptiongenerated for "baby-sitter". Transfer was made to Hadeswanting to beautify the underworld and the job descriptionneeded for that task.* As a group, students were asked to write a description forthis job, keeping in mind their knowledge of the gods whomight apply for this job.** Fermenting: integrating ideas and generating further detail.93.02.03(B, D, F)Individual myths were read. Students were shown a jobapplication form a young adolescent might use. Details of theform were discussed.*The job descriptions written last day were given to differentgroups and students discussed who might be the best applicantfrom their reading. Together, they had to choose one suitableapplicant and write a resume to apply for that job.** Fermenting: accepting ideas, using constructive criticism.93.02.05^*** The criterion exercise, The Story, was administered for asecond time93.02.09(B, D, F)Students read their own myth. The format and contents of anewspaper were reviewed. Students were to create a mininewspaper for the gods within a given time frame.*The group decided on four sections of the newspaper. Eachstudent chose a section and wrote or represented some actionof their god. A specific time frame was enforced forcompletion.201** Fermenting skills; role of timekeeper and director wasessential.*** The Cooperative Checklist (Johnson et al, 1990) wasadministered for a third time.^93.02.10^*** The students illustrated in the "Circles Of Feelings" for athird time.93.02.17^*** The Harter Scale Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation InThe Classroom (Harter, 1980) was administered as a posttest.93.02.22^* * * The Preference For Work Structures post- questionnairewas administered.202APPENDIX HSEQUENCE OF MATERIALS READBaseline PhaseShort StoriesWherever You Are. Unit 1 (Impression Series)Read AloudFenner, Carol. Randall's WallNovel StudyHalverson, Marilyn. Cowboys Don't CryReader ResponsePaterson, Katherine. Park's QuestIntervention PhaseMirror NovelsFox, Paula. One-Eyed CatLittle, Jean. Mama's Going To Buy You A Mocking BirdReader ResponseGarfield, Leon, and Bernard Blishen. The God Beneath The Sea.Greek MythologyAll Over The World. (Impression Series)Measure Me Sky. (Ginn Series)Library Selections (books chosen by students)Content ReadingB.C.T.F. Lesson Aids. The Future Of CanadaDaily Newpapers203APPENDIX ICOOPERATIVE CHECKLISTt0 Johnson & JohnsonC^STUDENT CHECKLIST: Cooperation^CI contributed my ideas and information.I^ tAlways SometimesI asked others for their ideas and^information.NeverIiAlways1sSometimesI^summarized all our ideas and^information.sNevertAlwaysiSometimesI^asked^for help when^I^needed^it.1NeverAlways SometimesI^helped the other members of my group^learn.NeveriIAlwaysiSometimesI made sure everyone in my group understood how to dothe school work we were studying.INeverIAlways SometimesI^helped keep the group studying.NeverI1Always1ISometimesI^included everyone^in our work.INeverIAlways Sometimes Never(Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1990)204APPENDIX JGROUP WORK QUESTIONNAIREStudent APre-test^ PosttestPeople have different ideas about , how group work helps them? How doyou feel about group work? The following statements tell about waysin which group work might help some people. Read each statementcarefully and circle the letter that best describes your opinion atthis time.205Not A Little Can't QuiteHelpful Helpful Decide HelpfulA B C DHelps MeA LotEHow much does group work help you...1. Do your best?^ A lk C2. Explore new ideas? A^D E3. Understand more about the waysother people think and act?^ A 4 C4. Share your ideas?^ A B C ■5. Think more clearly? A B C6. Look at your own ideas in different ways?^A^C D E7. Concentrate on the assigned work?^A B^›B E8. Solve learning problems?^ A A:- C9. Feel good about yourself? A B I10. Learn more about a topic?^ A B11. Complete assigned tasks? A."" B12. Feel less anxious about schoolwork?^A^C D E113. Make new friends?^ B^D E14. Get out of doing much work?^ A^D E15. Get others' attention? B C D E16. Feel more accepted by others?^ B C D E17. Become involved in school? A^C D E18. Tell others what to do?^ B C D Ea19. Waste class time?^ C D E20. Accept others who are not your ■personal friends? A B^EAPPENDIX KGROUP WORK QUESTIONNAIREStudent BPre-test^ PosttestPeople have different ideas about. how group work helps them? How doyou feel about group work? The following statements tell about waysin which group work might help some people. Read each statementcarefully and circle the letter that best describes your opinion atthis time.206Not A Little Can't QuiteHelpful Helpful Decide HelpfulA B C DHelps MeA LotEHow much does group work help you...1. Do your best?^ A B2. Explore new ideas? A B C3. Understand more about the waysother people think and act?^ A B C4. Share your ideas?5. Think more clearly?^ D E6. Look at your own ideas in different ways?^A7. Concentrate on the assigned work?^ D8. Solve learning problems?^ A B^)89. Feel good about yourself? B 7, D110. Learn more about a topic?^ D E11. Complete assigned tasks?12. Feel less anxious about schoolwork?13. Make new friends?^ B C14. Get out of doing much work?^ C D E15. Get others' attention? B^D E16. Feel more accepted by others?^ A B^..^E17. Become involved in school?18. Tell others what to do?^ A B19. Waste class time?20. Accept others who are not yourpersonal friends?^ A B^DC D EAPPENDIX LGROUP WORK QUESTIONNAIREStudent CPre-test^ PosttestPeople have different ideas about. how group work helps them? How doyou feel about group work? The following statements tell about waysin which group work might help some people. Read each statementcarefully and circle the letter that best describes your opinion atthis time.207Not A Little Can't QuiteHelpful Helpful Decide HelpfulA B C DHelps MeA LotEHow much does group work help you...1. Do your best?^ A B C2. Explore new ideas? A B C3. Understand more about the waysother people think and act?^ A B^1:0\4. Share your ideas?^ A B C D5. Think more clearly? A B6. Look at your own ideas in different ways?^B C D7. Concentrate on the assigned work?^A B^D8. Solve learning problems?^ A B9. Feel good about yourself? A B^D E10. Learn more about a topic?^ A lr C11. Complete assigned tasks? ti B C^E12. Feel less anxious about schoolwork?^B^D E13. Make new friends?^ A B14. Get out of doing much work?^ As""^C D E15. Get others' attention? B^D E16. Feel more accepted by others?^ A B^D E17. Become involved in school? A B18. Tell others what to do?^ B^D E19. Waste class time?^ A,,^C D E20. Accept others who are not yourpersonal friends? A B CAPPENDIX MGROUP WORK QUESTIONNAIREStudent DPre-test^ PosttestPeople have different ideas about. how group work helps them? How doyou feel about group work? The following statements tell about waysin which group work might help some people. Read each statementcarefully and circle the letter that best describes your opinion atthis time.Not A Little Can't Quite Helps MeHelpful Helpful Decide Helpful A LotA B C D EHow much does group work help you...1. Do your best?^ A^C D E2. Explore new ideas? A B^D E3. Understand more about the waysother people think and act?^ A . C4. Share your ideas?^ A B C '7>D5. Think more clearly? A^D E6. Look at your own ideas in different ways?^A^C ;1)7. Concentrate on the assigned work?^A B^D E8. Solve learning problems?^ A B C D9. Feel good about yourself? A B10. Learn more about a topic?11. Complete assigned tasks?12. Feel less anxious about. schoolwork?13. Make new friends?14. Get out of doing much work?15. Get others' attention?16. Feel more accepted by others?17. Become involved in school?18. Tell others what to do?19. Waste class time?20. Accept others who are not yourpersonal friends?^ A B C208APPENDIX NGROUP WORK QUESTIONNAIREStudent EPre-test^ PosttestPeople have different ideas about. how group work helps them? How doyou feel about group work? The following statements tell about waysin which group work might help some people. Read each statementcarefully and circle the letter that best describes your opinion atthis time.209Not A Little Can't QuiteHelpful Helpful Decide HelpfulA B C DHelps MeA LotEHow much does group work help you...1. Do your best?2. Explore new ideas?3. Understand more about the waysother people think and act?4. Share your ideas?5. Think more clearly?6. Look at your own ideas in different ways?7. Concentrate on the assigned work?8. Solve learning problems?9. Feel good about yourself?10. Learn more about a topic?11. Complete assigned tasks?12. Feel less anxious about schoolwork?13. Make new friends?14. Get out of doing much work?15. Get others' attention?16. Feel more accepted by others?17. Become involved in school?18. Tell others what to do?19. Waste class time?20. Accept others who are not yourpersonal friends?CEECCCCC DCCAPPENDIX 0GROUP WORK QUESTIONNAIREStudent FPre-test^ PosttestPeople have different ideas about how group work helps them? How doyou feel about group work? The following statements tell about waysin which group work might help some people. Read each statementcarefully and circle the letter that best describes your opinion atthis time.Not A Little Can't Quite Helps MeHelpful Helpful Decide Helpful A LotA B C D EHow much does group work help you...1. Do your best? A B2. Explore new ideas? A B3. Understand more about the waysother people think and act? A B4. Share your ideas? A B5. Think more clearly? A B6. Look at your own ideas in different ways? A B7. Concentrate on the assigned work? A B8. Solve learning problems? A B9. Feel good about yourself? A B10. Learn more about a topic? A B11. Complete assigned tasks? A B12. Feel less anxious about schoolwork? A B13. Make new friends? A B14. Get out of doing much work? A B15. Get others' attention? Ap< B016. Feel more accepted by others? A B17. Become involved in school? A B18. Tell others what to do? A19. Waste class time? A/ B20. Accept others who are not yourpersonal friends? ABCD210

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054834/manifest

Comment

Related Items