Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Cooperative learning activities : the study of random groupings and sociometric groupings and their impact… Lang, Esther Uldene 1991

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A8 L36.pdf [ 3.31MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100536.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100536-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100536-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100536-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100536-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100536-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100536-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100536-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100536.ris

Full Text

COOPERATIVE LEARNING A C T I V I T I E S : THE  STUDY OF RANDOM GROUPINGS AND  SOCIOMETRIC GROUPINGS  AND THEIR IMPACT ON SELF-ESTEEM by ESTHER ULDENE LANG B.  Ed., U n i v e r s i t y  of V i c t o r i a ,  1980  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in  THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES  Department o f E d u c a t i o n ,  We a c c e p t  this  Curriculum  thesis  to the required  THE  as conforming standard  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH July  and I n s t r u c t i o n  COLUMBIA  1991  (c) E s t h e r U l d e n e Lang, 1991  In  presenting this  degree at the  thesis in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  the  requirements  British Columbia, I agree that the  for  an advanced  Library shall make it  freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying  of  department  this thesis for or  by  his  or  scholarly purposes may be granted her  representatives.  It  is  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission.  Department of  ^.U^/XXALXJ^C^J  The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada  Date  DE-6  (2/88)  ^JU  /??/  -j-  3ry^t^u^X^rxO  ABSTRACT  This  study  students  for  see  impact  what  examined  two  grouping for each  cooperative  had on  One m a j o r q u e s t i o n  student  formed the  any  Grade  7  level,  over  to  choose  group membership f o r  activities The within  the  Interior  a  randomly,  subjects same  of  difference six  as  were  41  Grade  elementary  British  in  to  Columbia.  was  grouped s o c i o m e t r i c a l l y  units  set  up  class  was  grouped randomly f o r  Subjects Concept three  Scale  times  activities, two  months  measure  was  whole,  had a  result  of  not  any  and the  the  at  end o f  the no  used  study  i f  in  a  for  in  small  three  same  in  three  grouping or  in  the  in  were  Self-  any C o o p e r a t i v e  perceived  more  other  Inventory  each  at  Learning  and  after  This group,  as  self-esteem,  in  a  as  and whether  significant  random g r o u p i n g .  i i  the  Children's  not  one  Studies  month a c t i v i t i e s ,  whether  the  units.  learning activities,  self-esteem  in  while  or  cooperative  the  classes  Social  to  change  at  teacher  intact,  activities.  determine  the  two town  format,  before six  Is  learning  Cooperative Learning  significant  changes  time,  cooperative  Piers-Harris  the  to  sociometrically.  the  -  study:  self-esteem  Coopersmith Self-Esteem  the  the  sociometric  given  during  of  student  Cooperative Learning  were  the  Keeping classes  class  in  of  7 students  school  selecting  self-esteem.  month p e r i o d o f  opposed  of  learning activities,  basis  there  were  significant  p o l a r i z e d views  the  or  a  Tests degrees were the  were  of  freedom,  calculated  of  entering  variance  According no  grouped  significant  females. time,  to  cooperative student  the  the the  data  randomly or  difference there  in was  in  self-esteem  the  and  i i i  and  using  calculate  p a r t i c u l a r sample, self-esteem  of  significant  general.  squares,  probabilities  program to  self-esteem a  of  computer  sociometrically.  activities in  a  sums  the  measures.  this  combined groups,  learning  into  SPSS:X  for  means,  F-ratios,  data  repeated  difference  However,  with  of  for  the  significant  students no  by  and t h e i r  mean s q u a r e s ,  ANOVAR c o m m a n d f i l e  analysis  is  hand-scored,  the  T h e r e was  males  that  could  had  also  versus  difference  suggesting have  of  there  over  the some  impact  on  T A B L E OF  CONTENTS  ABSTRACT  i i  LIST  vi  OF TABLES  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CHAPTER  I:  vi i i  NATURE  O F T H E STUDY  A.  The  B.  Rationale  C.  The  Purpose  D.  The  Significance  E.  Questions  F.  Hypothesis  8  G.  Definitions  8  H.  Organization  CHAPTER A.  B.  CHAPTER  II:  Statement  of  for  REVIEW  the  of  of  the  1  of  1  Study  the  1  Study  of  the  Problem  the  3 Study  3  Study  the  7  Paper  10  OF T H E L I T E R A T U R E  Studies Relating L e a r n i n g and the  11  to Cooperative A f f e c t i v e Domain  Studies R e l a t i n g to Heterogeneous G r o u p i n g s and C o o p e r a t i v e L e a r n i n g  III:  D E S I G N O F T H E STUDY  A.  Subjects  and Length o f  B.  Inventories  11  15  19  Study  19 20  1.  Coopersmith  Self-Esteem  2.  Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale  iv  Inventory  21  22  C.  1.  Pre  2.  IV:  Study a.  Consent  b.  Pre  c.  Organization of  for  Test  Study  Administration  25 27  L e a r n i n g Phase  28 28  Materials  b.  Classroom Procedures  Testing  23  Classes  Used  29 31  Phase  R E S U L T S AND A N A L Y S I S  34  OF DATA  34  Sample  B.  Factors  C.  Data Analysis  CHAPTER V :  the  a.  A.  A.  23  Phase  The C o o p e r a t i v e  3. CHAPTER  23  Procedures  in  35  Scoring  36  SUMMARY, C O N C L U S I O N S ,  AND I M P L I C A T I O N S  50 50  Summary 1.  Purpose  50  2.  Questions  51  B.  Conclusions  C.  Limitations  D.  Implications  52 of  the  for  57  Study  Further Research  58  BIBLIOGRAPHY  60  APPENDICES  64  A.  Appendix A: Summary o f Relating to Cooperative  the L i t e r a t u r e Learning  B.  Appendix B:  Sample  Letters  of  C.  Appendix C: Lesson Plans  Sample  Cooperative  Permission  65 67  Learning 72  v  LIST  Table  1:  OF T A B L E S  Summary o f P o p u l a t i o n i n the Study  20  2:  Design  Table  3:  Summary o f Raw D a t a f o r S o c i o m e t r i c G r o u p by Gender on C o o p e r s m i t h Self-Esteem Inventory  37  Summary o f Raw D a t a f o r R a n d o m G r o u p by Gender on C o o p e r s m i t h Self-Esteem Inventory  38  Summary o f Raw D a t a f o r S o c i o m e t r i c G r o u p by G e n d e r on t h e P i e r s - H a r r i s C h i l d r e n ' s Self-Concept Scale  39  Summary o f Raw D a t a f o r R a n d o m G r o u p by Gender on the P i e r s - H a r r i s C h i l d r e n ' s Self-Concept Scale  40  Summary o f A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o n the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory  42  Summary o f A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o n t h e PiersHarris Children's Self-Concept Scale  42  Summary o f M e a n s a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o n the P i e r s - H a r r i s C h i l d r e n ' s Self-Concept Scale f o r the S o c i o m e t r i c a l l y Assigned Group  44  Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  Table  4:  5:  6:  7:  8:  9:  10:  11 :  12:  13:  14:  the  Male/Female  Table  Table  of  of  Study  31  Summary o f M e a n s a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o n the P i e r s - H a r r i s C h i l d r e n ' s Self-Concept S c a l e f o r the Randomly A s s i g n e d Group . . . .  44  Summary o f M e a n s a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory the S o c i o m e t r i c a l l y Assigned Group  on for 45  Summary o f M e a n s a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory the Randomly A s s i g n e d Group  on for 45  Summary o f M e a n s R e l a t i n g t o T i m e o n the Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale .  46  Summary o f M e a n s R e l a t i n g t o T i m e o n Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory  46  vi  the  Table  Table  15:  16:  Summary o f R e s u l t s o f T u k e y ' s P o s t - H o c f o r the P i e r s - H a r r i s C h i l d r e n ' s Self-Concept Scale  Test  Summary o f R e s u l t s o f T u k e y ' s P o s t - H o c f o r the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory  Test  vii  48  48  ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS  Very has  little  truly  been  can  be  accomplished  in  based  on  cooperation,  collaboration,  corroboration. following * her  Dr.  Dr.  support  would  like  to  express  This  study  and  my g r a t i t u d e  to  the  my c o m m i t t e e  chairperson,  for  comments  suggestions  people: Florence  guidance *  I  isolation.  of  and  D.  Pieironek,  support,  Allison  for  my p r o p o s a l ,  his  and h i s  and  patience  with  my  in  statistical  analysis, *  Dr.  A.  *  Dr.  H. Ratzlaff  solving, *  and  for  Bennett who  who  observations  give  the  allowed  to  their  his  me  relating  on  my  thesis,  availability  in  many  in  their  children  to  help  especially to  to  share  informal the  the  Grade  be  any  used  v i i i  of  to  who  and  with  the  their  this  their  situation,  a n d made  7 classes  in  for  classes  data,  and  problem-  Strachan  performance  feelings, to  Lang,  in  Daniel their  for  things,  M r . and M r s . Theodore  collect  students  feedback  reading  and w i l l i n g n e s s  allowed me  for  wisdom  my c o l l e a g u e s ,  helped  *  his  my p a r e n t s ,  encouragement *  Lukasevich for  Roger  them,  and  beneficial students,  were  willing  parents  study.  who  to  CHAPTER  A.  Although  much r e s e a r c h  learning  achievement  and to  forms  research of  allow  the  grouping ability  student  has  than  been  have  researcher of  on  students, the  one  their  cumulative  upper  intermediate  The in  term  educational  have been  cooperative (Davidson, 1983a, Sharan,  that  of  Problem  completed  relation it  consider have  This  explore  two  on  grades,  over  of  there  of  some  student  organized  to  heterogeneous  the  students  student  other, in  and  the  time.  f o r t h e Study  very  A l t h o u g h many r e s e a r c h  popular studies  the influence of  1981; Newmann, self-esteem  are s t i l l  of  that  not  g r o u p i n g by  l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s on s t u d e n t  1980),  on  a period of  out t o determine  1983b) a n d o n s t u d e n t  appear  impact  l e a r n i n g " h a s become  methodology.  use  student  or  methods  self-esteem  the  whether  was  sociometric  Rationale  1985; J o h n s o n ,  to  would  more  study  on  and random g r o u p i n g on  "cooperative  carried  in  to  others.  effects  the  been  groupings  to  of  self-esteem,  done  hand,  B.  has  techniques  heterogeneous  self-esteem  N A T U R E O F T H E STUDY  The Statement  cooperative  little  I:  achievement  1987; S l a v i n (Slavin,  1980,  1983a;  numerous u n a n s w e r e d q u e s t i o n s .  1  Cooperative for  classroom  learning  work.  It  is  is  cooperative  goal  structure  can  that  goal,  achieve  group swim  does  his/her  together"  Therefore, the  the  classroom  homogeneous  Authors  of  apparent  students  all  to  in  who  giving  however,  out  classroom.  the  group  little of  by means low-,  of  p r o p o r t i o n to  the  whole  the  holding  pieces  of of  groupings the  number  coloured these  by  paper  and  class,  two  appear  One  and  highethnic including  The o t h e r  into  to  sociometric  a  group,  randomly w i t h i n  suggestions  2  a  been  self-esteem.  numbering students "four"  have  state  including  introverted/extroverted.  to  between.  middle-,  female,  for  approaches  student  in  and  current  seems  learning  and e v e r y t h i n g  of  of  differing on  within  abilities).  light  groupings  8).  ability)  the  research  or  exist,  desirability  cooperative  students  p.  groups  equal  they  that  "We s i n k  types  a  that  in  the  and  Many  of  students  where  1986,  various  i n c l u d i n g male  are  termed,  Two b a s i c  in  students  student  learning  of  that  perceive  & Holubec,  are  impact  positions,  randomize  students  other  roughly  groupings  grouping  theory  been  stresses  extolling  including  minorities  are  heterogeneous  to  achievement,  is  learning  books  is  has  studied.  students  student  of  This  students  (where  polar  extremity survey,  be  concerning  "selection"  each  cooperative  findings;  completed  if  for  students  makeup o f  Cooperative  research  exists,  the  Johnson,  (where  heterogeneous  on  (Johnson,  should  heterogeneous  technique  based  only  part.  a  extremity and or the  desirable  making by  according have  on  to  the  literature self-esteem  C.  The the  way  purpose Grade  significant period teach  of  7  Social  of  Studies  7 classes  be  that  by  the  school. Grade is  7  very  does  not  seem  "mountaintop" contend  as  to  determine  assigned  to  each  whether  groups This  or  caused  was  learning  s t i l l  concerning Grades  that  have  the  not  any  done  over  techniques  a to  are  this  the  is  not  tend  rapidly  a l l  students  3  include  self-concept,  have oldest  healthy  indicate  appear  "valleys" become  seems  in  the  true.  At  that In  belief to  self-concepts  students  necessarily  Students many  which  The c u r r e n t  deteriorate.  stabilized. but  to  Study  schools  student  7 should  they  and can  Not  of  Elementary system.  experiences,  well.  to  cooperative  the  be  does  Study  using  observations  fragile  was  the  self-esteem.  Unfortunately, level,  of  their  Districts  in  effect  students?  study were  what  content.  teachers,  fact  the  but  The S i g n i f i c a n c e  in  students very  in  months,  School  among many  this  students  D.  Grade  of  The Purpose  change  six  Some  reviewed,  the  self-concept many to  with  behavior  cases  have which  it  many to  problems,  but  the tendency  t o r e b e l o r t o compete f o r a t t e n t i o n  seems t o  be more p r e v a l e n t . While  they wish  their potential, concepts  a l l students  t e a c h e r s a r e now b e i n g  as mainstreaming  classrooms, curriculum  t o do w e l l a n d t o a c h i e v e  of special  faced with  needs s t u d e n t s ,  a n d new c u r r i c u l u m s t r a n d s b a s e d content  been suggested  (Sullivan,  such  1988).  on i n t e g r a t i o n o f  Cooperative  a s one s t r a t e g y t o a d d r e s s  l e a r n i n g has  many o f t h e c o n c e r n s  t e a c h e r s have about t h e wide a b i l i t y  range expected  exist  1988).  i n their Research  classrooms indicates  (Sullivan,  1980,  probably  Therefore  1978; J o h n s o n &  1989; S h a r a n ,  1983b, 1986, 1987b, 1988a,  1980; S l a v i n  1989, 1 9 9 0 ) ,  upon o t h e r w o r k e r s w i t h i n t h e i r  t h e y must be c o n c e r n e d  with  group.  the v a l u e o f each  t h e g r o u p , a n d depend on o t h e r s b e s i d e s  person  themselves.  w o r k i n g t o w a r d a common g o a l , t h e g r o u p may e n c o u n t e r division  indeed  because g o a l s a r e s t r u c t u r e d so t h a t t h e students a r e  interdependent  within  (Aronson,  1983, 1987; R o a r k & S h a r a h ,  1981, 1983a,  to co-  t h a t c o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g does  enhance s e l f - e s t e e m i n s t u d e n t s Johnson  ungraded  In  a  o f l a b o u r o r a d i v i s i o n o f r e s o u r c e s , so t h a t each  member p l a y s a v i t a l  r o l e w i t h i n the group.  Thus t h e w e l l -  f u n c t i o n i n g group i s p r o v i d i n g encouragement f o r t h e underachievers,  and m o t i v a t i o n f o r t h e  Gradually,  a p e r i o d o f time,  built,  over  and s t u d e n t  positive.  unmotivated.  a network o f s u p p o r t i s  s e l f - e s t e e m g e n e r a l l y tends  Each person  t o become more  i n t h e group i s accountable  t o every  o t h e r member i n t e r m s o f t h e commitment t o t h e p r o j e c t .  4  Within and  t h e i r group, students  to explain their  topic.  reasoning p e r t a i n i n g to a  Responsibility  recognize  a r e encouraged t o ask  i s shared,  t h a t t h e p r o j e c t c a n n o t be  commitment o f t h e w h o l e g r o u p . together,  students  use  strategies  these  manner.  and  The  strategies,  are  taught  the group  behavior,  and  Davidson,  1985;  1980;  Slavin  encouraged  the  social  teacher's  concern  about  There are  Johnson & Johnson, 1981;  1981,  skills 1975;  been  of  of higher  on-task  (Aronson,  1978;  J o h n s o n , Maruyama,  Newmann & Thompson,  1988a,  student  indications  i n c r e a s e d p e r s p e c t i v e t a k i n g , more  1980,  to  healthy  i n c r e a s e d r e t e n t i o n , g r e a t e r use  Skon,  the  feedback.  greater collaborative  Johnson, Nelson,  and  c o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g s t r a t e g i e s has  h i g h e r achievement, reasoning,  to  t o work w e l l  skills  the g o a l s ,  answered i n the r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s .  level  begin  to h e l p the group f u n c t i o n i n a  I n many ways, much o f t h e achievement with  particular  completed without  In o r d e r social  teacher provides and  students  questions  1988b, 1990;  1987;  Slavin  Sharan  & Karveit,  1981). If  c o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g promotes p o s i t i v e  self-esteem  g r e a t e r achievement a c c o r d i n g t o the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s , it  may  these  be  beneficial  f o r teachers  ideas into t h e i r present Over the p a s t  established  two  years  a long-range  administrators,  and  teaching  School  5  strategies.  District  of parents,  non-teaching  then  t o f i n d ways t o i n c o r p o r a t e  p l a n , b a s e d on  P l a n n i n g Committee made up  and  #30  has  the a d v i c e of teachers,  employees.  The  first  a  objective  i s t o "promote t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f an e n v i r o n m e n t i n  t h e s c h o o l , t h e home and to develop Teachers  t h e community  that assists  a h e a l t h y s e l f - c o n c e p t " (S.D.#30, 1989,  and  strategies  District  personnel  are attempting  i n w h i c h t h i s g o a l c a n be  l e a r n i n g has  explored.  become a " g r a s s r o o t s " movement,  m o n e t a r i l y by  the  (Aronson,  Holubec, Slavin,  1983;  1986;  1978;  heterogeneous,  Dishon  & O'Leary,  Sharan & Sharan,  1988b; S t a n f o r d ,  1977;  hand, random g r o u p i n g s  i s n o t p e r c e i v e d as  group, but  i t i s the  a student w i l l  according  both  leave  the students On  the  for a  the other  hand,  a r e recommended, where i t i s h o p e d t h a t one  student  criteria  other l i t e r a t u r e  ideas of s o c i o m e t r i c groupings  Therefore,  Some  while others  t h e t e a c h e r t o make t h e g r o u p  Still  1985;  a r e recommended where  "choosing"  t o some p r e - d e t e r m i n e d  achievement.  &  teacher.  work w i t h a t l e a s t  o t h e r s c h o s e n by  1988).  " l u c k o f t h e draw".  sociometric groupings  Cooperative  Johnson, Johnson,  heterogeneous,  On  and  of  Rhoades & McCabe,  Vermette,  judgement o f t h e  teacher  with a mixture  1984;  1987;  t o the one  Cooperative  that cooperative  Dept. o f C o o p e r a t i o n  r e s e a r c h e r s d e f i n e j u s t how that  implement  District.  l e a r n i n g g r o u p s s h o u l d be  Development,  p.2).  supported  Much o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e w r i t t e n s u g g e s t s  students  to  children  i t i s worthwhile  heterogeneous groupings  to study  to determine  6  such  he  selects,  and  heterogeneous as  level  of  recommends i n c o r p o r a t i n g and  random  both  groupings.  polarized  which,  forms o f  i f either,  creates  more of  positive  fragile  self-esteem,  Questions  One m a j o r q u e s t i o n  Is  there  esteem of  with  students  at  an  age  self-concepts.  E.  A.  especially  any  at  time,  membership randomly,  Additional  Grade  the for  as  the  formed the  significant  the if  of  7  basis  were  cooperative  opposed  questions  to  for  difference  level,  teacher  Study  over to  a  this  in  student  six  choose  learning  study:  self-  month p e r i o d group  activities  sociometrically?  relating  to  gender  were  also  considered: i.  Are there  any  male/female the  study,  significant  perceptions at  the  of  time,  no  cooperative  there  any  and a f t e r  positive  the  study?  improvement  of  end o f  a  six  boys  self-esteem Does  of  gender  two  relate  7  at  before  months  girls  before  self-esteem  level?  or  the  month p e r i o d  a period of  of  in  self-esteem  learning activities?  evidence  more  differences  and  Is having after  to  the  Grade  7  of  F.  1 .  There  is  esteem  no  at  Harris  significant  the  Coopersmith  Grade  participating  the  defined  as:  conducted  purpose  of  Cooperative  Learning  teacher,  which  in  goal  is  Each  group  member  There  is  goal  is  -  a  over  study  strategy are  and must  given on  his/her  on the  the  the  selfthe  the  Piers-  between  and random g r o u p i n g  of  learning  six  following  employed  be be  of  months.  to  1986).  8  by  a  terms  by  the to  reaching  will  teams.  group each the  as  having  Johnson,  A  a  other  goal.  responsibility.  group  be  classroom  learning  accountable  the  outlined  by  into  achieved  and shared  basis  model  and  Scale,  a period  commitment  leadership  by  cooperative  divided  g r o u p member m u s t for  measured  students in  student  Definitions  this  students  given,  shared  (based  Holubec,  Self-Concept  of  students  as  in  Self-Esteem  grouping of  For  reward  of  sociometric  G.  whole.  difference  7 level,  Inventory  Children's  activities  group  Hypothesis  A group  achieved  Johnson &  the  Self-esteem  - operationally  d e f i n e d as s c o r e s on t h e P i e r s -  H a r r i s C h i l d r e n ' s S e l f Concept S c a l e and on t h e Inventory and  o f Self-Esteem.  beliefs  facing  that a person  the world.  expressed  b r i n g s w i t h him- o r h e r s e l f  holds  toward t h e s e l f  1981, p . 1 , 2 ) .  Self-esteem  of being  loved.  - a student  feels  l o v e d and f e e l s  attitude  toward o t h e r s .  s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e and i s a b l e t o take r e a s o n a b l e undue a n x i e t y .  He b e l i e v e s t h a t s u c c e s s  effort.  make a p o s i t i v e  difference  Random S e l e c t i o n a t random.  i s likely  - students  t o o n e s e l f , o n e ' s home,  personality attempt  Perhaps students  perform  after  Selection  one's  a r e numbered  i n sixes, or arrive i n  n o t i o n s about  which  w e l l w i t h which o t h e r s t u d e n t s , o r about  c l a s h e s w h i c h may o c c u r .  t o mix a b i l i t y  Sociometric  without  a r e c h o s e n t o be members o f a  T h e t e a c h e r h a s no p r e - c o n c e i v e d  students w i l l  He h a s  (S.D.#30).  g i v e n p i e c e s o f c o l o u r e d paper randomly as they class.  risks  He  He b e l i e v e s t h a t o n e ' s c o n t r i b u t i o n s c a n  s c h o o l a n d o n e ' s community  group,  worthy  He i s a c c e p t i n g o f h i m s e l f a n d o f o t h e r s .  a c a r i n g and u n d e r s t a n d i n g  reasonable  when  I t i s a p e r s o n a l judgment o f w o r t h i n e s s  Positive  has  I t represents a s e t of attitudes  i n the a t t i t u d e s a person  (Coopersmith,  Coopersmith  T h e r e i s no d e l i b e r a t e  l e v e l s o r sexes.  - each student  i s g i v e n a c a r d and asked  t o p l a c e o n i t t h e names o f two o r more s t u d e n t s w i t h w h i c h he  9  wishes which any  to  work.  students  other  students  The t e a c h e r within  students, around  the  the  collects  the  c l a s s r o o m have  and b u i l d s  a network  isolates.  Thus  cards not of  these  and  been  analyzes  chosen  by  supportive  groups  become  teacher-chosen.  H.  This first the  paper  hypothesis, the  is  chapter,  purpose  of  nature  of  the  study,  its  and  and  groupings  organized  the  the  literature  learning  Organization of  and  subjects  length  self-esteem researcher  of  the  the  during  with  actual  data  implications  the for  the and  study further  pre  of the  and study  with  research.  10  deals  of  two  to  heterogeneous  study,  including  inventories  phase.  used  procedures  phase,  the Chapter  focuses  to of  the test the  cooperative four  analysis.  summary,  and  cooperative  three  the  with  reviews  Chapter  statistical the  The  questions  Chapter  and  the  testing its  its  background  domain,  study,  the  and  closes  the  chapters.  generally  significance,  students,  phase,  five  major  study,  learning.  design of  learning the  to  cooperative on  and  the  affective  specifically  five  Paper  working d e f i n i t i o n s .  relating the  in  the  deals Chapter  conclusions  and  CHAPTER  This  chapter  headings: the  a.)  II:  reviews  studies  affective  domain,  heterogeneous  REVIEW  and b . )  groupings  the  general  respect  to  the  affective  considering  Some  research  A.  of  Studies  of  of of  the  the  relating  becomes  in  is  examples  classroom  more  of  This  in  review  with  the  desirability  cooperative of  research  others,  and  focussed,  generally  of  two  to  learning  students  perceived  topic  ideas  of  under  learning  learning.  cooperative  students  this  contains  implementation justification  on  studies  of  studies  cooperative  behaviors  and then  groups  Literature types:  ideas  specifically  heterogeneous  to  recent  and c o o p e r a t i v e  on  schools,  a number o f  relating  focuses  elementary  OF T H E L I T E R A T U R E  learning. three  basic  findings,  a n d some  implementation,  of  some  of  of  based  on  the  others.  Relating  to  Cooperative Learning  and the  Affective  Domain  Much  research  cooperative behavior Maruyama, However, the  learning  (Aronson, Johnson, only  majority  has  a  few  of  the  been  carried  and c o m p e t i t i v e  1978; J o h n s o n Nelson  studies.  11  on  the  to  have  of  both  student  1987;  1981; S h a r a n ,  seem  effects  l e a r n i n g on  & Johnson,  & Skon,  researchers  out  Johnson,  1980,  been  1984).  involved  in  Major c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h i s Aronson  (1978),  1 9 8 7 ) , R.E.  D.W.  Slavin  J o h n s o n & R.T. (1980, 1981,  1987b. 1987c,  1987d,  1988a,  (1980,  i n the  field  H.S.  1984),  Sharah  review  (1989) i n t h e  will  Johnson  1983a,  of education,  i n classrooms  and  J o h n s o n , J o h n s o n , and children  and  behaviors they  adolescents  and  Being  c o n s t r u c t i v e peer Peers  productivity, situations skills has  or  and  than  indicates  Roark  who  but  that  have the tends  adolescents  others'  behaviors  to bring  on  need  t o a v o i d the p a i n  of  i n c o m p e t i t i v e ones. cooperative  i s found  Where a c h i l d  years  has  i n t e r a c t i o n with  his/her productivity.  f r o m a few  i n cooperative  earlier  weak peers  Although  (1978) c o n c u r s ,  t h a t a more p o s i t i v e a c h i e v e m e n t r e s u l t s  achievers,  and  cooperative  t o i m i t a t e each  g r e a t e r achievement  e f f e c t s on  Aronson's data  Sharan  seem t o h a v e a s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e on  i s unmotivated,  powerful  of  one's p e e r s  C h i l d r e n and  relationships  A.E.  S.  (1986) c o n c l u d e d  inclined  r e j e c t e d by  behaviors.  loneliness.  Holubec  are  1986,1987a,  society.  to i d e n t i f y with persons  desire.  anti-social  in  E.  1983,  1 9 9 0 ) , and and  to  of behavioral sociology.  These r e s e a r c h e r s d i s c u s s the p o t e n t i a l strategies  given  (1975,  1983b,  1988b, 1989,  field  be  that high a c h i e v e r s "are not  he  among  harmed"  lower  by  cooperative learning strategies. It  i s important  that children  and  adolescents  feel  sense o f b e l o n g i n g  w i t h i n a group, because t h i s w i l l  their  and  self-esteem,  socially  and  a l l o w them t o f u n c t i o n w e l l  academically.  The  12  p a t t e r n then  a  enhance  both  becomes  cyclical.  Greater  self-esteem equals  greater  self-esteem.  I n 1980, theories:  Johnson's r e s e a r c h supported  peer  willingness classroom  acceptance  is positively  t o engage i n s o c i a l  p s y c h o l o g i c a l pathology; disruptive attitudes  classroom  behavior,  toward o t h e r  i s related  situations  hostile  students  to u t i l i z a t i o n  (Johnson,  and  of  with  the group  negative by  i n achievement Therefore  opportunities for  students  maintaining  c o m p l e t e d much o f t h e r e s e a r c h  cooperative learning (Slavin,  1983b, 1986,  and  to  control  dynamics.  S l a v i n has concerning  i s related  1986).  still  the  and  school; acceptance  Johnson & Holubec,  each other, w h i l e  in  self-esteem,  behavior  of a b i l i t i e s  t e a c h e r s w o u l d be w i s e t o a r r a n g e to interact  low  peers  with  isolation  handicaps,  r e j e c t i o n by  equals  interesting  correlated  interaction;  emotional  which  some  i s associated with high anxiety,  poor i n t e r p e r s o n a l s k i l l s ,  peers  greater productivity  1987b, 1988a,  1983a,  reports that  students  i n cooperative learning situations  seem t o l i k e  other  students  and  the  in a  liked  c o n t r o l g r o u p do. successful when t h e y  in their  He  by  s c h o o l work when t h e y  work i n d e p e n d e n t l y ,  increase i n self-esteem.  he  compared d i f f e r e n t  technique  o t h e r s more t h a n  also reports that students  an  (Slavin,  1981,  1990).  1981,  He  feel  1989,  1980,  published  types  and  feel  more  work i n teams  that this  can  than  also lead  to  I n some o f h i s r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s , of cooperative l e a r n i n g structures  1983b, 1 9 8 8 a ) , b u t  used t o c a r r y out  students  i n most c a s e s ,  the  type  c o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g d i d not  13  of seem  to matter.  T h e r e was  still  cooperative  activities  some s t u d i e s r e l a t i n g cooperative positive  and  self-esteem.  He  to interdependence  g r o u p s and  correlation  a positive correlation  (Slavin,  conducted  of students  g r o u p r e w a r d , and  as w e l l  also  between  found  in  t h e r e was  1988a).  Sharan conducted experimentation  i n schools  in  Israel,  where p r o b l e m s o f e t h n i c d i f f e r e n c e s were p r o n o u n c e d . s t u d i e s he and  reported  a more p o s i t i v e  1980).  However, an  increased cohesiveness effect  a  among  of r e l a t i o n s with  In h i s  classmates  peers  (Sharan,  i n t e r e s t i n g p o i n t i n h i s d a t a was  that  opinions  o f m a j o r i t y g r o u p s t o w a r d m i n o r i t y g r o u p s were more  positive  than  the o p i n i o n s o f the m i n o r i t y groups  m a j o r i t y groups. cooperative  He  also reported  group a c t i v i t i e s  changes i n the  social  (Sharan,  1980).  research  i n d i c a t e d t h a t the  and  others  significant b a s e d , and  just  I n one  of the  of h i s l a t e r  a s much a s  difference. comprised  t h a t s i x h o u r s a week o f  d i d not  fabric  students i n the  He  cooperative  l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s was  impact  student  t h a t the  studies  was  teacher  too He  He  found  no  School f o r s i x hours  indicated that i t  technique,  t h a t was  14  themselves  short for i t to  reinforced  of Secondary School  (1984) h i s  Secondary  h a v e b e e n more s i g n i f i c a n t  composition  a whole  amount o f t i m e f o r  self-esteem.  but  as  tested liked  would p r o b a b l y the  significant  classroom  a single  e a c h week.  greatly  concluded  effect  c o n t r o l group.  T h i s study  l e s s o n s by  toward  i f more t e a c h e r s  difficult  c u r r i c u l u m and  with  the  scheduling.  had  T h i s m a j o r body o f r e s e a r c h learning  i s indeed  e s t e e m , and  Caution  interdependence and  students  that  a mode i n w h i c h t o s t u d y  i n d i c a t e s t h a t the  self-esteem.  suggests  and  must be  individual  must be  student  t r e n d w i l l be taken  cooperative  more  self-  positive  to structure tasks  a c c o u n t a b i l i t y can  be  w o r k i n g t o w a r d a common g o a l  so  achieved,  (Slavin  1988a; D a v i d s o n ,  1986;  Research r e s u l t s  have a l s o i n d i c a t e d t h a t s u b j e c t c o n t e n t  quite  i n cooperative  on  irrelevant  the  Johnson, Johnson & Holubec,  s t r a t e g y o r method and  l e a r n i n g , as  not  on  ( J o h n s o n , Maruyama, J o h n s o n , N e l s o n  B.  the  the  1986). is  emphasis i s  subject  & Skon,  that  matter  1981).  S t u d i e s R e l a t i n g t o H e t e r o g e n e o u s G r o u p i n g s and  Cooperative  Learning  The  practical  learning to  theory  classroom  applications of putting  i n t o p r a c t i c e i n the  teachers.  The  f o r the  cooperative  theory  Slavin  t o the  a c h i e v e m e n t and groupings  on  Although  (Dishon  there  of  1984;  self-esteem,  and  the  a c h i e v e m e n t and  15  effects of  1986;  research  e f f e c t s of heterogeneous groupings  student  i s much  for  & O'Leary,  a dearth  concern  for  Johnson, Johnson & Holubec,  1 9 8 8 b ) , t h e r e a p p e a r s t o be  relating  are of  of heterogeneous groupings  learning activities  J o h n s o n & J o h n s o n 1975;  classroom  s e l e c t i o n of groupings  c h i l d r e n becomes a m a j o r commitment. support  cooperative  on  student  homogeneous  self-esteem.  According  t o most o f t h e i m p l e m e n t o r s ,  l e a r n i n g g r o u p s s h o u l d be s m a l l discussion.  They  and h i g h - a c h i e v e r s ,  gives  Johnson  f o r greater  fast  and slow r e a d e r s ,  a n d be m u l t i e t h n i c  & Holubec,  1986; S l a v i n ,  Students with d i f f e r e n t  a s s e r t i v e and  l o w - , medium-,  ( A r o n s o n , 1978;  two r e a s o n s f o r m i x e d - p e r f o r m a n c e  group:  f a c i l i t y of  s h o u l d c o n t a i n boys and g i r l s ,  non-assertive students,  Johnson,  cooperative  1988b).  Slavin  levels within  each  performance l e v e l s w i t h i n  a  team c a n t u t o r e a c h o t h e r ; by p r o v i d i n g b a l a n c e d teams, no single  team h a s a n a d v a n t a g e  1983b).  Johnson, Johnson,  i n academic  & Holubec  h e t e r o g e n e o u s g r o u p s b a s e d on m i x e d more e l a b o r a t i v e of  thinking,  This  ability,  there w i l l  more f r e q u e n t g i v i n g  should r e s u l t  accuracy o f long-term r e t e n t i o n .  be  and r e c e i v i n g  taken i n d i s c u s s i n g  i n an i n c r e a s e  student understanding, the q u a l i t y  (Slavin,  (1986) c o n t e n d t h a t , i n  e x p l a n a t i o n and g r e a t e r p e r s p e c t i v e  material.  performance  i n the depth o f  of reasoning,  and t h e  A heterogeneous  group  i n v o l v e s students working c o o p e r a t i v e l y  together so that the  skills  s t u d e n t s c a n become  the  and e x p e r i e n c e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l  skills  Slavin  a n d e x p e r i e n c e s o f a l l (Rhoades  alleges  that  & McCabe,  1985).  some o f t h e s t u d i e s he h a s c o n d u c t e d  indicated  t h a t g r o u p g o a l s and i n d i v i d u a l  essential  t o student p e r c e p t i o n s o f the worth o f the group  (Slavin,  1988a).  Stanford selecting the  accountability are  s u g g e s t s t h a t c a u t i o n s h o u l d be t a k e n i n  the s i z e o f the groups.  I f the group  amount o f t i m e f o r e a c h member t o s p e a k  16  i s too large,  i s severely  limited.  As  a  disruptive. be  a more  and  result  Conversely,  narrow range  human r e s o u r c e s  successfully  two  of  polarized  categories. research,  but  suggested  to  of  analyzes chosen  by  Another mean and last  to  learning  speculation  each  student  he  would  finds  the  appear  by  the  groups gives  like  is  to  names  to  of  become  selection  pre-determined in  a  specific  method  selecting group,  & Holubec). for  of  a name  Some  In  as  topic, was  and  from the  implementors Dishon  group,  middle  17  those  is  to  and we  basis  of  ability,  assertiveness.  of  which  (1984)  can  ability, from  (Johnson,  recommend v a r y i n g and O ' L e a r y  been  6,  the  a name  group  type  around  to  on  ranking order  first  a  not  random-stratification in  way  between,  gender,  ethnicity,  from the  groupings.  etc.  on  One  extreme  counting  measures  such  based  teacher  support  students  students  a n d a name  of  into  other  who h a v e  and m i x i n g o f  suggested  names  a group,  be  The  as  such  network  fall  provide  work.  "isolates"  to  experts.  methods  by  "ones"  task  to  The o t h e r  the  material  intermediate  1975).  groups  may  heterogeneous  & Johnson,  the  or  there  both  seem  number o f  categories  for  select  (Johnson  placing  process  the  a  teacher  interest  o n how  and any  students  list,  of  and b u i l d s  a l l  certain  on  which  lack  completing  bored,  small,  anyone,  randomize  have  with  this  isolates  having  where  too  and a  cooperative  these  merely select  sociogram  classmates  of  to  is  restless,  1977).  categories, None  group  opinions  teachers for  may b e c o m e  the  adequate  for  students  i f  of  (Stanford,  Directions groups  students  the  the Johnson  selection  suggest  that  if  the  teacher  message  that  only  successful. would  be  a  send  from  assignment as  students  that  McCabe  an  In  the  to  in  not  that  make o n e  implementors,  random s e l e c t i o n  ability  obtain  available,  a  in  levels  a more  of  as  is  has  of in  the  social  conveys  to  and  valuable  Rhoades for  the  value,  more  and  non-academic  careful not  essential.  comprehensive  synopsis  group  equal  only  which  any  with  person  such  be  random  this  are  up w i l l  successfully  prefers  class  activities  that  cope  the  random g r o u p i n g  together  teachers  sends  sets  having  students  (1977)  the  he/she  teacher  for  He s u g g e s t s  student  attempt  literature  Appendix  some  academic of  the  c a n work  does  recommend  In  been  picture  provided  of  in  A. conclusion,  self-esteem is  liking  (1985) or  to  and  persons  Yet  articulation  it  arise.  task.  activities  the  or  groups,  that  Stanford  students  a l l  the  an argument  classroom  group.  they  knowing  the  groups  a message  where  problems  to  the  the  cooperative  that  chooses  Therefore  to  students  always  as  it  groups  a  relates  advantageous  polarized  with  to  to  to  study  self-esteem  extended  period  in  one  of  research  types  of  student  ascertain  positive  of  lack  cooperative  or  or the  learning  classroom.  18  the  topic  heterogeneous  reactions  whether  group  on  not  grouping,  within there  other,  is  after  activities  of  the a  two more  an  within  the  CHAPTER  This  chapter  procedures This  involved  chapter length  the  procedures the  of  the  The Grade  of  in  the  by  the  Interior  is  from  within  community,  not  1 indicates  an e x p l a n a t i o n  relating  self-esteem  the  this  same of  British  mostly a great  nor within  the  to  of  variety  various  study.  the  the  pre  subjects used,  and  study  testing  phase.  Study  were  in  a  from  small  Columbia.  of  school  breakdown o f  19  in  middle-class,  the  this  and the  study  school  the  inventories  researcher  and Length  in  of  and e x e c u t i n g  l e a r n i n g phase,  within  There  Table  the  involved  families.  O F T H E STUDY  components  Subjects  a mixed a b i l i t y ,  the  the  cooperative  7 classes  to  designing  followed  students  community  in  study,  A.  DESIGN  devoted  presents  and  phase,  is  III:  two  intact  mining  Students  are  two-parent  ethnic  differences  population.  classes  by  gender.  Table  1:  Summary o f  Population of  Class  8  Females  11  12  Totals  21  20  months  directly  of  no  full  of  end  of  testing  involved  in  of the  the  was  the  began  a  total  of  given  after  a  learning school  laid  and O c t o b e r ,  students  April,  cooperative length  g r o u n d w o r k was  September  involving  the  delayed  initial  six  cooperative  by  part  months.  the  of  the  Then,  almost  Thus  the  students  learning activities  B  researcher  November and  period of  but  the  the  in  activities. year,  Study  Class  A  10  the  until  the  Males  Although for  Male/Female i n  ran the  two  months  study were for  study  ran  the  directly  only  six  months.  B.  There have put  been  are  some g o o d  published.  together  one's  Inventories  own  While  inventories in  some c a s e s  instrument,  20  it  is  of  self-esteem  it also  is  tempting  time  which to  consuming  to  establish  through  1.  the  validity use  of  and r e l i a b i l i t y o f  a pilot  the  involving  appeared  to  the  Although  this  analysis  of  According  use  inventory  studies  consistency. (1974, have in  1978)  is  it  not  is  validity  by  (1973),  both  Kimball has  (Coopersmith,  1981,  A  encompasses  scales  -  test  general  school-academic, may n o t the  be  "whole"  easily  scored  social  and a  lie  the by  12  self,  pertinent of  reliability,  r a n g i n g between pp.  to  person.  hand w i t h  -  .9  reported  for  children by  (1972),  over  to  Spatz  and  consistency a period  of  15).  ages  8-15,  self-peers,  and c o n t a i n s  they  The t e s t s an answer  are key.  five  home-parents,  Although a l l  study,  21  is  internal and  Kokenes  testing  Fullerton  .8  scale.  this  internal  and gender  indicated  time  research.  inventory  grade  (1967).  clinical  researchers  (1972),  coefficients  for  learning  Inventory for  good  this  to  with  single  has  external  (1972)  by  (1968)  it  the  and c o o p e r a t i v e  recommended  As r e l a t i n g  and R e i t z  much o f  recommended  conducted  studies  4 - 7 .  Johnston  Taylor  self-esteem  and K i m b a l l ,  construct  Grades  and  In  literature,  Coopersmith Self-Esteem  students,  to  Inventory  research  experimentation  instrument  study.  Coopersmith Self-Esteem  Throughout  the  do  help  brief  of to and  the  scales  determine fairly  2.  Piers-Harris Children's  The  Piers-Harris Children's  does not as  a p p e a r t o be  correlated level  by  Schauer,  with  i n 1975  (Piers,  sound i n s t r u m e n t  f o r c h i l d r e n , but  interpreting  cluster  a highly reliable reliability s y s t e m s by  instrument.  P i e r s and  ( 1 9 7 0 ) , P l a t t e n and  outside  consistency (Lefley, and  of  1974;  Taylor,  S m i t h and  Studies  (1979),  .88  The  1981)  and  1984,  p.  p.  57).  22  and  used  in  1169).  private  (1966),  i t is  .65  to  1978;  .81.  Bolus Many  the  Self  school  McLaughlin  internal  Concept  Scale  1 9 7 4 ) ; Winne, Marx F r a n k l i n , Duley,  found c o e f f i c i e n t s  have a d e q u a t e t e m p o r a l s t a b i l i t y (Piers,  1985,  be  on T e s t - r e t e s t  Dinero,  Piers-Harris Scale  The  psychometrically  S h a v e l s o n and  ranges of  Rogers,  Grade  s c a l e suggests that  Piers-Harris Children's  Sabers,  .93.  this  and  59).  caution should  ( 1 9 6 4 ) , Wing  Yonker, B l i x t  1977;  t h e most  a l s o c o n d u c t e d s t u d i e s on  R o u s s e a u and to  Harris  reliability  the  p.  i n b o t h t h e p u b l i c and  Williams  researchers  1984,  (Mitchell,  c o n d u c t e d on  conducted  (1982) r e p o r t e d  scores  research  however, i t i s  Coopersmith i n s t u d i e s a t the  b e e n recommended a s  Major t e s t i n g  (1969)  i t . Piers-Harris  P i e r s - H a r r i s has  the  Scale  i n educational  of Self-Esteem;  i n conjunction  (r=.85) w i t h  Scale  Self-Concept  i n as w i d e a u s e  the Coopersmith Inventory  sometimes used  5/6  Self-Concept  i s therefore  ranging judged  good i n t e r n a l  from  to  consistency  In  a d d i t i o n t o t h e above t e s t  was r e l a t i v e l y easy  easy  features, the Piers-Harris  t o a d m i n i s t e r t o t h e s t u d e n t s , and q u i t e  t o hand s c o r e w i t h a key. I t was a d v a n t a g e o u s ,  both  f o r comparative  o f t h e s e t e s t s t o g e t h e r , as p r e t e s t s ,  purposes,  t o perform  p o s t - t e s t s , and  delayed t e s t s  i n both groupings.  The t i m e  administering  them was r e l a t i v e l y  small with respect t o the  valuable  involved i n  i n f o r m a t i o n t h e y a l l o w e d t o be g a t h e r e d  to validate  the student perception of self-esteem.  C.  The  study r e q u i r e d three d i s t i n c t  Phase,  2)  Phase.  Each o f these w i l l  activities  1.  l j  3)  the salient  phase.  Phase f o r t h e Study  t o t h e study,  c o n t a c t was made w i t h  numerous  agencies t o a c q u i r e necessary p e r m i s s i o n t o conduct First  of a l l , the Superintendent  Secretary-Treasurer,  research.  of Schools, through the  gave p e r m i s s i o n t o conduct  human s u b j e c t s w i t h i n t h e s c h o o l d i s t r i c t Secondly,  Pre-Study  Testing  be d i s c u s s e d o u t l i n i n g  r e q u i r e d i n each  Consent  Prior  phases:  C o o p e r a t i v e L e a r n i n g P h a s e , and  P r e Study a.  Procedures  research using  (Appendix B ) .  t h e E t h i c s Committee a t U.B.C. a p p r o v e d t h e  23  application subjects  the  conduct  (Appendix  Upon of  to  permission  where  to  the  formal  the  research  conduct  and p r o v i d e d a  be  with  involved  of  the  the  children contained their them  a  to  the  to  B).  the  they  committed  their  in  to  support  to  in  gave this  statement  their  the  to  their  for  in  two  their  the  from  forms sets  discuss  support.  It  was  of  achievement,  be was  available  only  to  connected  with  the  The teachers  final of  permission  the for  also  the  two  stressed  to  researcher  or  returned  of  the  and  allow  any  time  support  study to  before  a l l  would  that  not  a l l  lower  results  individually  raw d a t a  and u n i v e r s i t y  to  allow  arrangements  revealed  the  their  not  in  made  in  forms  at  emphasized  and not that  for  clause  experimentation  confidential  would  be  personnel  project.  permission  the  the  students  registered  testing  nature  levels  It  the  allow  parents  children's  way.  within  researcher  of  and a  were  of  the  to  the  the  any  gave  Permission  study  of  in  the  permission  parents  nature  would  of  who w e r e  the  surveys  Principal  place  parents  study.  children  although  researcher  of  take  the  human s u b j e c t s  students  A l l permission  with  that  the  participate  project,  parents  of  involved  withdraw  was  using  forms  7 classes  choice  child  (Appendix of  be  human  B).  parents  Grade  to  letter  consent  (Appendix  Then both  the  using  approval above,  research  school, sent  research  B).  receiving  school  educational  Grade  a n d a p p r o v a l was 7 classes  researcher  to  24  obtained  involved.  teach  the  They  subject  from  the  gave  their  of  Social  Studies  in  duration  their  of  six  classrooms months.  make o b s e r v a t i o n s assist  in  was  the  possible.  researcher, In  cooperative for  the  learning  already  Pre  Test  Before within  the  any  the  the  were  second, given all  the  an  test  university their  other staff  feelings  allow  pure  them  before  the  experimentation,  conduct  except  their  to  as  to  learning  Scale  survey  under  or  the  classrooms.  versa.  as  would than  Before  of  the be  the  activities forms  pretests with  first,  basic  researcher  They were  honestly.  25  half  the  the  the the  and  the  students.  class  Coopersmith students  the  and open  and  place  Self-Esteem  a l l  and  survey  confidential  involved.  to  beginning,  took  (Piers-Harris  and C o o p e r s m i t h  counterbalanced,  explanation  personnel  Minor  not  Piers-Harris scale  results  as  to  to  asked  for  two  administered  were  and v i c e  data  experimentation  cooperative  Inventory)  receiving  and  appropriate. to  a  on hand  groups,  teachers  the  be  for  Administration  classrooms,  tests  were  established  Self-Concept  two  they  two  week,  to  within  when  keep  activities  Children's  The  these  each  encouraged  collecting for  hours  behaviors  and to  addition,  duration of  groupings  b.  student  provided  three  They were  informal data  inservice assist  on  for  were  promise to  no  applicable  encouraged  to  state  that  There code the  were  n o names  numbers were data.  class  lists  the  first  201  to  with  These of  student  from  These  enable  to  that  could recall  the  papers,  but  researcher obtained  121,  as  their  and i n placed  each  the on  organize taking  the  second  the  test  was  to  place  numbers  student  to by  and randomly a s s i g n i n g  101  so  the  numbers were  numbers were  masking tape,  students  to  students  class  220.  used  p l a c e d on  numbers class  desks  completed, their  in  from  students'  on  the  the second  test. The manual,  test page  researcher gave see  the  instructions 7,  and a d j u s t e d  collected  student  that  the  student's  the  the  student  student  extra  Piers-Harris  Social  tests  in  or  one  were  was  class  each form,  the  absent,  upon r e t u r n  to  of  Piers-Harris  tests.  student each  to  The finished,  time  and  checking  that  on  one  for  that with  the  to  the  26  the  research,  class  new study,  and  an  list.  Scale,  trip,  and  on O c t o b e r 24,  scheduled  cooperative  class.  When a  month o f  the  to  Coopersmith Inventory,  was  a hunting  relating  classes.  Self-Concept  for  on  later,  the  after  researcher  content  made  obtained  pretested  Children's  before  be  out  number added  Studies  student  test  had to  p e r m i s s i o n was  student  days  as  both  the  number c o r r e s p o n d e d w i t h  who m o v e d i n  Students  few  fit  from  desk.  arrived  parental  read  to  tests  second  Some d e c i s i o n s students  were  to  begin  learning.  and so  a  the Only  completed  the  one  c.  Organization of  The  following  is  Classes  an  explanation  of  the  structure  of  the  This  was  classes. Each done  by  having  Grouping These  classroom  and an  were  workings  the  chosen  to  the aid  chosen asked it.  at  in to  groupings  the  the  the  end  of  class each  draw a number o u t who w e r e  well.  In  the to  which  to  first,  researcher by  the  These  then  number o f were  with  were  identified  a  part  of  the took  any  other  their  the  as  the  unit  not and  to  box  and  to  that  system  in  random again  student  was  name  students  were  students unit  with  teams.  them  first  by  others.  chosen  most  popular,  and p r o b a b l y a b l e  isolates Then  and g i v e n others  27  some o f  were  chosen their  added,  by  The  of  had been  who w e r e  on  selected  who  Those  was  was  his/her  four  and o r g a n i z e d  the  classroom  were  each  third  box.  able  were  names  or  a  experimentation.  and p l a c e  three  second,  be  groups  groups,  Random  disturb  system,  that  their  of  classroom  new  of  lists  to  groupings  the  had  out  period of  meant  a  "R" f o r  Once a  the  This  student.  group.  the  "choose"  students  obviously  work  as  sociometric  an o p p o r t u n i t y in  an  teacher.  where  absent  given  work  so  within  duration of  style.  Grouping  classroom,  groups  random f a s h i o n .  as  pull  a p a r t i c u l a r grouping  within  Students  randomly  Sociometric  classroom  student  for  example,  fashion,  the  a grouping  involved  established  represent  maintained For  teachers  class  of  determining  assigned  "S" f o r  intact  of  enlist  of  the  was  all  to  no  one  choices  attempting  as to  keep  a  balance  of  boys  and g i r l s ,  achievers.  Most  person  had chosen.  the  they  students  After  the  were  first  list  on  their  with  whom t h e y  size  was  limited  tried  ensure  five,  team  were  to  time  only  Materials  Social  Sumerian  three  to  the  same the  Cooperative  the  six  In  or  teams.  than  each one  The  group  once.  Learning  Phase  in  to those  case,  group  involved  high-  months,  encouraged  student.  students  larger  one  least  students  although  extra  at  groups  grouped.  students,  and  were  different  the  of  different  been  take  with  course  students  paper,  four  was  T h e r e were  civilization.  group  goal,  and  the  group.  the  content  three  civilization,  Greek  within  the  middle-,  group  had  five  researcher the  group  Used  Studies  learning.  grouped with  grouping,  that  2.  a.  of  had a l r e a d y  each  of  part  were Over  selection  students to  students  and l o w - ,  the  Each  used  to  conduct  cooperative  major u n i t s  of  study  the  -  Egyptian c i v i l i z a t i o n , lesson  interdependence Lessons  textbooks  and supplementary  (Appendix  C).  were  was of  each  student  discussion  materials  28  prepared to  as  and  the  ensure on  each  oriented,  research  a other  using  information  b.  Classroom  It  was  guidelines of  Procedures  necessary  to outline  f o r classroom  Cooperative  and  follow specific  management t o e n s u r e  o u t " programs such  such  and  many s p e c i a l t y  to establish  priority.  As  classrooms  a t once,  n e e d e d t o be  Thursdays, chose the  and  Gymnasium, i t was  a timetable for Social  The  t o 10:30  teacher with  very  S t u d i e s as  t o 12:00  t h e c l a s s e s c o u l d be  per  t h e Random  the S o c i o m e t r i c  p e r i o d on  kept  similar  a  teaching i n both class  Grouping  p e r i o d on T u e s d a y s , Wednesdays  while the teacher with 11:00  "pull-  Learning  t h r e e one-hour b l o c k s o f time  reserved.  of  rooms r e q u i r i n g t i m e t a b l i n g  t h e r e s e a r c h e r c o u l d n o t be  c h o s e t h e 9:30  a variety  a s Band, Shuswap L a n g u a g e , and  a s Computer, L i b r a r y ,  important  effects  Learning.  B e c a u s e t h e r e s e a r c h e r ' s s c h o o l had  Assistance,  maximum  Grouping  t h e same d a y s . i n content,  and  Therefore  time,  and  researcher/teacher. Although allotted  time  to develop  that a l l of these that  Before cards  unit  of  two  months was  f o r groupings,  t o have been  the r e s e a r c h e r  a l r e a d y knew e a c h o t h e r w e l l  activities  w o u l d be more b e n e f i c i a l  felt and as  the  formed. the study  to indicate  female,  trust  students  team b u i l d i n g  g r o u p s were  and  i n the f i r s t  began, s t u d e n t s  i n C l a s s "A"  were g i v e n  t h e names o f f o u r f e l l o w s t u d e n t s , b o t h  w i t h which they would l i k e  study.  29  t o work on  their  male  first  Students in  a  in  Class  random f a s h i o n  student  had each  students  preview  the  a  capabilities  cooperatively, with  the  with  the  unit. a  day  When t h e  with  begin  a  task,  the  new  unit  involved  opportunity  to  team  before  were  individual  in  or  that  a whole final s/he  half  to  a unit  interact  with  disbanded  accountability strategies  group of  the  changed  to  judge  dealing  unit  of  examination was  g r o u p was  a  new  asked S/he  on  to  spent  having had one class  the  new  student  for student  team  group  was  the  class  had  whether  sociometric  researcher/teacher  interdependence  the  arrived,  study,  according  good  the  for  the  student.  of  random g r o u p i n g s  allowed  to  researcher  assigned  they  teams  first  part-time  again,  time  for  each  the  able  preparation  and another  the  give  and  mental  group  After  academically  as  on  first  card,  also  but  once  of  to  group,  selected  amount  able  (random g r o u p i n g ) .  missed  a  study.  a n d was  both  student  of  selected  a n d was  their  their  box  Assistance,  group with  to  to  the  keeping  consistently  To  new  the  groups,  group,  in  unit  on  introduction  from  that  first  stand,  a mind  topic  letter  Learning the  of  assigned  name  their  remained  difficulty who  of  Students  choose the  team  problems.  from  their  his/her  possible  work, the  for  had w r i t t e n  researcher  "B" were  of the  groupings.  study  gave  members  of  and r e a s s e m b l e d . to  implement  strategies deemed  30  and  more  The  students each It of  for  a  small also  the  student  necessary  been  success  to  (Slavin  1988a).  Some o f t h e s e  teams, g r o u p g o a l s , and g r o u p  3.  included student  roles within  rewards.  T e s t i n g Phase  The  Table  design o f the study  2:  As  Design  c o u l d be diagrammed a s f o l l o w s :  o f t h e Study  Group 1 :  0-|  X  1  0  2  0  3  G r o u p 2:  0-j  X  2  0  2  0  3  determined  by t h e d e s i g n o f t h e s t u d y ,  major S o c i a l  S t u d i e s U n i t s were c o m p l e t e l y  the students  a g a i n completed  Coopersmith), referred  again  Finally, completed, regular agreed  with  o n May  1,  fashion.  This  was  testing.  the Cooperative  t h e s t u d e n t s were t a u g h t  teacher  finished,  the three  t h e i n v e n t o r i e s ( P i e r s - H a r r i s and  i n counterbalanced  t o as the post  after  Learning Social  f o r t h e months o f May  t o use a b a s i c t r a d i t i o n a l  no c o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g g r o u p s . again given i n counterbalanced  element  S t u d i e s by  and J u n e .  Each  their teacher  s t y l e of presentation, with On J u n e 19 t h e t e s t s  were  fashion t o a l l of the students.  31  This  time  there  were  administered later,  h a d moved away finished, before the  the  end o f  delayed  ask  asked  each  related  lots  of  relation home."  to  the  to  the  What  forms  and these  Also,  23.  one  final  tests  student  who  l e a r n i n g component  and r e t u r n e d them by  These  tests  were  time  frame,  had  mail,  referred  to  "obedient" to  question  "pep" meant,  The o t h e r Scale  was  as  mean?  do".  Student  the  the  was  - "I have  and were  that  the  asked  told  term in  - " I am o b e d i e n t  The student  was  questions  dealt  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by  interfered with  need  students.  #55  question #35  the  One q u e s t i o n  researcher noted  outdated.  felt  by numerous  Scale,  a s k e d what the  students  statements.  Piers-Harris  point  asked  some  test  Piers-Harris  did  have  period,  each  and t h e r e f o r e  not  absent,  cooperative  clarify  Students  somewhat  semantics  the  in  At this  you are  should  to  pep."  was  the  June.  consistently  "pep"  as  students  on June  testing  questions  "energy".  three  testing.  This  what  just  completed  During to  were  choices  the  told  at  "doing  with  researcher  made b y  the  students. Also were "I  relating  "only  like  children",  my b r o t h e r  brother(s) no  to  question  the  and asked  (sister)",  and s i s t e r ( s ) , " be  left  questions,  the  to  suppose  he/she  to  the  positive  Piers-Harris  blank.  researcher had a  on each  as  how c o m p l e t e  a n d #32 the  had the  sibling,  were  option or  both of  students  questions  - "I p i c k  that  #72  -  o n my insisted  that  hypothetical  asking  defaulting  Realizing  32  three  r e s e a r c h e r had  As they  test.  Scale,  each most  the  student  statement "only  children"  would  question,  #72  "no". 1984,  This p.  was  "Unlike  agree"  the  too.  make to  judgement  "yes"  options  and  -  had  "I  "No" o r  and  on  #32  given  difficulties the  would  use  but  placing  of  a  hypothetical  defaulted  to  in  the  manual  with  the  Coopersmith  in  equated  the ones  helped  play  the  #40  with  the  the  (Piers,  "Like  negative with  appeared  "Yes"  to  to  that age, to  s/he  played  and o l d e r clarify  or  satisfy  bother  c h i l d r e n younger  same  on  with  appeared  student  emphasis  titles  columns  which  researcher of  column  dealing  Question  the  the  disagree",  rather  told  The r e s e a r c h e r by  "I  anxieties.  children,  statement  two  Me", e s p e c i a l l y  One s t u d e n t  younger  the  The r e s e a r c h e r  students'  students am."  of  One i n v o l v e d  statements. "I  to  defaulted  one  students  Inventory. and  was  want  8).  The  Me"  not  some  than  I  with ones  the  "would r a t h e r "  within  the  sentence. The student  end  of  the  involvement  data in  collection  the  actual  33  signalled study.  the  end  of  the  CHAPTER IV:  This chapter the use the  presents  o f t a b l e s and  f a c t o r s taken  inventories,  and  RESULTS AND  ANALYSIS OF  the r e s u l t s  explanations.  of the  DATA  study  I t discusses the  into consideration in scoring the  statistical  through  analyses  sample,  the  p e r f o r m e d on  the  raw  data.  A.  This two  study  was  c o m p l e t e d by  Grade 7 c l a s s e s , w i t h i n the  town i n t h e ability,  Interior  and  There i s not  mainly  activities  end  in Social  learning  of the  i n a small  They were o f  two-parent  of e t h n i c  were a s k e d t o f i l l  students  Studies  school year  activities  (delayed  and  after test).  34  mining mixed  background  class. out  (pre-test),  (post t e s t ) ,  from  families.  two  self-esteem  a six-month p e r i o d of c o o p e r a t i v e  six-month study  at the  Columbia.  school, or w i t h i n the  before  o f 41  same s c h o o l ,  from m i d d l e - c l a s s ,  These s t u d e n t s inventories  of B r i t i s h  a total  a noticeable diversity  e i t h e r w i t h i n the  the  Sample  again  finally  at the  two  learning end  months  a p e r i o d o f no  of  later,  cooperative  B.  Several marking  factors  and s c o r i n g  One read.  be  counted  On a  when  (Piers, the  were  was  could  be  errors  in  for  of  w h i c h was  the  when  single  included  between  impossible  "answers"  not  O m i t t e d and  the was  both  could  circle  in  A n o t h e r answer  total not  interpreted  was  a  as  raw  counted  answers.  accurately  decisions  to  final  data  Therefore  for  the  completion.  made into  complete  and the  where  time.  completed  Another student  address  third be  set  student left  A l l  to  other  the  the  of  at  paper.  aside  end  until  (to  was  they  who moved  include  not  the  included  of  the  study,  could mail  the  delayed were  an  not  dropped from  results  If  student  it  were  then  students  one  results  student's  35  each  test,  results  the  and  to  study  post  time,  put  n u m b e r was  researcher This  were  relating  the  the  single  re-scoring  papers  had to  a  by  those  Two m o n t h s  obtain  testing).  scored  marking  a  Although s/he  delayed  forms  be  consideration  "no" a n s w e r s .  be  circle  tests  school.  possible  an  of  checked  the  study.  a  to  to  data  had a  and  8).  encountered,  Some  the  set  for  error  away.  p.  into  answers.  Every checked  able  not  of  two  student "yes"  were  Scoring  taken  that  survey,  the  put  be  in  inventories. was  the  1984,  student  intended  left  both  responses  answers  the  single  because  encompassing  score  had to  consideration  to  double  Factors  in  the but  left  testing  included  in  the  total  whole  of  survey, the  as  s/he  research  was  compared  and  analyzed. the  total  including  the  lie  scale,  class  Table  the  group  for  the  and d e l a y e d  value  score  of  the  multiplied  Table  test  results  from  the  were  Coopersmith  50 s t a t e m e n t s , by  4 summarize  2 to  yield  these  raw  a  not score  scores  out  by  grouping. The  of  3 and  of  Analysis  The raw  was  100.  Data  post-test,  Inventory  of  part  project.  C.  Pretest,  a  the  scores  score  from  80 q u e s t i o n s . by  class  the  Piers-Harris  Table  scale  5 and T a b l e  grouping.  36  was  the  6 summarize  total these  value raw  Table  3:  Summary o f Raw D a t a f o r S o c i o m e t r i c G r o u p by G e n d e r on t h e C o o p e r s m i t h S e l f - E s t e e m I n v e n t o r y  i d e r / l .D. M/1 M/2 M/3 M/4 M/5 M/6 M/7 M/8 M/9 M/10 F/1 F/2 F/3 F/4 F/5 F/6  F/1  F/8 F/9 F/10 F/1 1  Pre-test 44 84 86 96 88 82 40 86 38 68 94 98 50 86 80 80 68 54 76 74 84  Post t e s t 52 72 92 96 82 84 66 86 52 84 94 96 54 72 76 86 56 58 68 76 90  37  Delayed 56 76 86 98 86 82 64 90 40 72 98 98 44 76 86 84 84 60 64 82 92  Table  4:  Summary o f Raw D a t a f o r Random G r o u p by G e n d e r on the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory  Gender/I.D. M/1 M/2 M/3 M/4 M/5 M/6 M/7 M/8 F/1 F/2 F/3 F/4 F/5 F/6 F/7 F/8 F/9 F/10 F/11 F/12  Pre-test 88 82 52 78 94 40 56 54 56 44 82 84 46 78 70 22 66 70 98 60  Post t e s t 94 64 60 74 90 40 62 32 68 68 78 70 56 76 56 . 20 66 84 88 56  38  Delayed 90 80 90 90 90 28 72 56 92 54 78 82 50 90 62 22 80 76 94 46  T a b l e 5:  Summary o f Raw Data f o r S o c i o m e t r i c Group by Gender on the P i e r s - H a r r i s C h i l d r e n ' s S e l f - C o n c e p t S c a l e  ler/I.D. M/1 M/2 M/3 M/4 M/5 M/6 M/7 M/8 M/9 M/10 F/1 F/2 F/3 F/4 F/5 F/6 F/7 F/8 F/9 F/10 F/11  Pre-test 37 73 69 77 76 61 35 63 38 49 69 74 39 72 57 67 58 52 67 55 69  Post t e s t 43 65 71 77 78 65 53 68 46 42 73 76 47 69 60 58 72 57 69 60 70  39  Delayed 52 69 73 79 78 68 60 72 45 46 74 75 48 71 72 58 64 61 70 65 74  T a b l e 6:  Summary o f Raw Data f o r Random Group by Gender on the P i e r s - H a r r i s C h i l d r e n ' s S e l f - C o n c e p t S c a l e  Gender/I.D. M/1 M/2 M/3 M/4 M/5 M/6 M/7 M/8 F/1 F/2 F/3 F/4 F/5 F/6 F/1  F/8 F/9 F/10 F/1 1 F/12  Pre-test 74 64 49 59 71 29 34 42 55 32 66 69 41 61 51 22 62 64 75 51  Post t e s t 77 63 51 54 70 36 46 37 67 59 64 64 48 55 41 22 61 65 77 55  40  Delayed 77 60 63 64 70 28 48 51 70 44 70 72 53 64 38 23 66 61 78 44  From 6,  the  raw d a t a  descriptive system  repeated  measures  provided  an a n a l y s i s  factors  factors Means  were  complete of  of  squares,  probability Table the  and the  time  (pre  of  degrees  surveys  8  post the  freedom,  (significance  7 and T a b l e  variance  variance  of  show  level the  4,  grouping,  41  each  and  Using  this  and w i t h i n  the  For  each the  mean s q u a r e s ,  F ratio,  set  were  p<.05)  factors  between  test).  and C o o p e r s m i t h ) ,  at  a  program  variable  interactions.  Table  University  SPSS:X.  and d e l a y e d  interaction  involved.  5,  the  (ANOVAR),  for  test,  Table  using  program  (Piers-Harris of  Table  calculated  and c l a s s  each  data  of  the  test,  for  3,  statistics  of  gender  given  were  analysis  of  set  Table  statistics  computer  the  in  sum  and  calculated.  for  each  of  Table  7:  Summary o f A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o n t h e Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory  Source Gender Grouping Gen/Group S(Within) Time Gen/Time Group/Time Gen/Gr/Time CS(Within)  level  Table  SS 0.000 1885.916 211.807 35474.000 434.338 20.429 155.999 230.319 4397.375  df 1 1 1 37  MS 0.000 1885.916 211.807 958.757  F-ratio 0.000 1 .967 0.221  Prob. 0.999 0.169 0.641  2 2 2 2 74  217.169 10.215 77.999 115.160 59.424  3.655* 0.172 1 .313 1 .938  0.031 0.842 0.275 0.151  o f s i g n i f i c a n c e s e t at  8:  .05  (=3 .15)  Summary o f A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e o n t h e Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept  Scale  Source Gender Grouping Gen/Group S(Within)  SS 140.774 1586.012 43.637 19546.750  df 1 1 1 37  MS 140.774 1586.012 43.637 528.291  F-ratio 0.266 3.002 0.083  Prob. 0.609 0.091 0.775  Time Gen/Time Group/Time Gen/Gr/Time CS(Within)  448.858 28.022 15.498 2.896 1861 .313  2 2 2 2 74  224.429 14.011 7.749 1 .448 25.153  8.923* 0.557 0.308 0.058  0.001 0.575 0.736 0.994  *level  of significance  s e t a t .05  42  (=3.15)  A c l o s e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e summary o f r e s u l t s f o r a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e from t h e r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t  Table  7 and T a b l e  8 indicates  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e genders,  b e t w e e n t h e s o c i o m e t r i c a n d random g r o u p i n g s , groupings  by g e n d e r .  that  There a l s o appears  o r between t h e  t o be no  significant  d i f f e r e n c e s between males and females  on p r e t e s t , p o s t  and  s t y l e s on t h e p r e t e s t ,  delayed  post test  tests,  or o f the grouping  and d e l a y e d  c a n be a c c e p t e d  student  students  sample,  hypothesis  t h e r e i s no s i g n i f i c a n t  Inventory  o f Self-Esteem  This difference  a s measured by  and t h e P i e r s - H a r r i s  S e l f - C o n c e p t S c a l e , between s o c i o m e t r i c g r o u p i n g o f  a n d random g r o u p i n g  cooperative  the n u l l  s e l f - e s t e e m a t t h e Grade 7 l e v e l ,  the Coopersmith Children's  Therefore,  on t h e b a s i s o f t h e d a t a c o l l e c t e d .  means t h a t , i n t h i s in  tests.  test,  learning  o f students p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n  activities  conducted  over  a period ofs i x  months. The  only s i g n i f i c a n c e w i t h i n the f a c t o r s  time  - p r e t e s t , post  test,  and d e l a y e d  this  significance only related  r e s e a r c h e r wanted t o d e t e r m i n e  test  peripherally  related  results.  t o the Although  t o the study, the  e x a c t l y where i t was.  I n a n a l y z i n g t h e d a t a , means and s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s were also provided Table  11, a n d T a b l e  deviations Table relate  f o r each o f the s o u r c e s .  9, T a b l e 10,  12, summarize t h e s e means a n d s t a n d a r d  f o r each o f the groupings,  13 a n d T a b l e  Table  14 p r e s e n t  by g e n d e r a n d t i m e .  t h e means o f t h e s a m p l e a s t h e y  t o time.  43  Table  9:  Summary o f Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o n t h e Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale f o r t h e S o c i o m e t r i c a l l y A s s i g n e d Group  Pretest Mean S.,D.  Post Mean  test S. D.  Delayed t e s t S.D. Mean  Male  57.800  16..719  60 .800  13. 742  64.200  12.700  Female  61.727  10..537  64 .636  8. 812  66.545  8.371  Table  10:  Summary o f Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o n t h e Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale f o r t h e Randomly A s s i g n e d G r o u p  Pretest Mean S.,D.  Post Mean  test S. D.  Delayed t e s t S.D. Mean  Male  52.750  16..884  54 .250  14. 888  57.625  15.203  Female  54.083  15.,722  56 .500  14. 299  56.917  16.572  44  Table  11:  Summary o f Means a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o n t h e Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory f o r t h e S o c i o m e t r i c a l l y A s s i g n e d Group  Pretest Mean S.D.  Post Mean  test S.D.  Delayed t e s t Mean S.D.  Male  71.200  22.215  76.600  15.579  75.000  17.518  Female  76.727  14.920  75.091  15.162  78.909  16.790  Table  12:  Summary o f Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s o n t h e Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory f o r t h e Randomly A s s i g n e d G r o u p  Pretest Mean S.D.  Post Mean  test S.D.  Delayed t e s t Mean S.D.  Male  68.000  19.828  64.500  21.693  74.500  22.367  Female  64.663  20.703  65.500  17.810  68.833  22.131  45  Table  13:  Summary o f M e a n s R e l a t i n g t o T i m e o n t h e Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale  Pretest  56.780  Mean  Table  14:  test  Delayed  59.293  Summary o f M e a n s R e l a t i n g Coopersmith Self-Esteem  Pretest  Mean  Post  Post  70.146  70.585  46  Test  61.415  t o Time on Inventory  test  Piers-  the  Delayed  74.146  Test  One m e t h o d was,  relating  Hoc  Test.  and  Table  divided Tukey  of  to  This 14  by  identifying  the was  where  the  factor  of  time  conducted, "q" equals  standard  Post-Hoc  exactly  Test  error  results  was  using the of  are  where to  the  the  use  Tukey's  means  difference the  mean  found  in  significance Post-  from Table  in  the  means,  (q=dif/S^.) Table  15  13  The  and  Table  16. For  the  measures,  Piers-Harris Scale,  X-j -  X ^ was  found  critical  value  of  q  with  level  of  significance  the  appears a  that,  significant  unit  on  for  for  to  the  change  cooperative  3 and  total in  using  be 60  the  table  significant, degrees  set  at  self-esteem  of  in  the  where  the is  3.40  Therefore the  from the  until  of  freedom  .05.  population  learning,  q  end  study,  it there  beginning  was  of  of  the  school  for  the  the  year. Although significance, learning both  in  boys  simply  a  relate  positive had  not  them.  be  many  explanations  it  possible  that  the  to  This to  does Grade  indeed 7.  use  of  enhance  cooperative self-esteem  Another explanation  of  could  maturity. results  learning,  been  in  and b e g i n  manner  continued  is  classroom  test  encouraged, their  could  and g i r l s  These  and  there  than  taught learning operate  could  to  they they some  feel  suggest more  continue  that  when  positive to  students  about  operate  in  a  themselves more  would  likely  have  social  skills  and encouraged  appears  to  internally  47  operated  have  transferred  for  students.  are  if  well,  they  to  use  and  Table  15:  Summary o f R e s u l t s o f T u k e y ' s P o s t - H o c for the P i e r s - H a r r i s C h i l d r e n ' s Self-Concept Scale  Difference *1  - *2  *1  - *3  *2  " *3  *level  Table  of  16:  q 2. 513  -  *2  *1  "  *3  "  *3  x  2  *level  of  3.20842  56.780  - 59.293 =  56.780  - 61.415 = 4. 635  5.91765*  59.293  - 61.415 = 2. 176  2.70922  significance  set  at  .05  Summary o f R e s u l t s o f T u k e y ' s P o s t - H o c T e s t f o r the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory  difference *1  Test  q  70.146  - 70.585 =  0.439  0.36046  70.146  - 74.146 =  4.000  3.32256  70.585  - 74.146 = 3.561  2.95791  significance  set  at  .05  48  Interpreting  t h e d a t a f r o m T a b l e 16, u s i n g t h e q t a b l e o f  m e a s u r e s where t h e c r i t i c a l freedom  v a l u e o f q f o r 3 a n d 60 d e g r e e s o f  i s 3.40, t h e r e was f o u n d t o be no  differences  significant  i n any o f t h e means a t t h e .05 l e v e l .  significance  The most  c o u l d be f o u n d a t t h e .1 l e v e l where t h e c r i t i c a l  v a l u e o f q was 2.96. I n c o n s i d e r i n g why t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e two t e s t s (Piers-Harris different, forms.  I n v e n t o r y ) were  t h e r e s e a r c h e r re-examined  The r e s e a r c h e r r e c a l l e d  encountered test,  S c a l e and Coopersmith  difficulties  i n trying  each o f t h e blank  some o f t h e s t u d e n t s e n c o u n t e r e d  helped with the semantics, encountered  me" a n d " u n l i k e  this difficulty  me".  and were  and took a guess  a t t h e answer.  e v e r y p r e c a u t i o n was t a k e n t o e n s u r e  t h e d a t a was k e p t a s p u r e consulted  negatively  t h e r e were p r o b a b l y o t h e r s who  such d i f f i c u l t i e s ,  In c o n c l u s i o n ,  o f the Coopersmith  how t h e y s h o u l d a n s w e r  s t a t e d q u e s t i o n s , u s i n g t h e columns " l i k e If  test  t h a t a few o f t h e s t u d e n t s h a d  with the l o g i s t i c s  t o determine  slightly  as p o s s i b l e ,  f o r matters o f t e s t  and t h e s c o r i n g  administration  o f c o n s i s t e n c y and r e l i a b i l i t y .  49  that  manuals  and f o r measures  CHAPTER V :  This summary  on  the  relating  brings  It  other  suggests  cooperative  the  It  reasons  further possible  1.  types  of  the  over was  a  purpose  of  groupings  opinions  of  period of  presented  Although did  the the  the  research  conclusions  changes on  in  original  implications  for  study  the  for  of  in  based  the  the  study  self-esteem,  topic  of  groupings.  Summary  Purpose  The  on  of  limitations  l e a r n i n g and s e l f - e s t e e m  A.  to on  and t h e i r the  AND I M P L I C A T I O N S  results  reports  considers  possible  the  findings  also  interpretation,  teacher. to  CONCLUSIONS,  together  and r e l a t e s  hypothesis.  data  classroom  and  chapter  form,  research  SUMMARY,  the  encourage  teachers,  this  students, months,  by means  some  was  (sociometric  six  data  study  was  of  to  and random),  relating during  informal  by  input  and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s based  50  to  which  cooperative  collected  gather  from  based  their their  learning  formal from  data  primarily  self-esteem Social  Studies  techniques.  testing,  students,  two  the  study  parents,  on o b s e r v a t i o n s  made.  2.  Questions  One major q u e s t i o n formed the b a s i s f o r t h i s  study:  Is t h e r e any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n student s e l f - e s t e e m a t the Grade 7 l e v e l , over a s i x month p e r i o d o f time,  i f the teacher were t o choose group  membership f o r c o o p e r a t i v e l e a r n i n g a c t i v i t i e s randomly, as opposed t o s o c i o m e t r i c a l l y ?  The  a n a l y s i s o f the data suggests  t h a t t h e r e i s no  s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the s e l f - e s t e e m o f the students grouped randomly as opposed t o those grouped s o c i o m e t r i c a l l y .  The  second q u e s t i o n r e l a t e d p e r i p h e r a l l y t o the f i r s t :  Are t h e r e any s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the male/female p e r c e p t i o n s o f s e l f - e s t e e m b e f o r e the study,  a t the end o f a s i x month p e r i o d o f time, and  a f t e r a p e r i o d o f two months o f no c o o p e r a t i v e learning a c t i v i t i e s ?  Is t h e r e any evidence o f  boys o r g i r l s having more p o s i t i v e b e f o r e and a f t e r the study?  self-esteem  Does gender r e l a t e t o  improvement o f s e l f - e s t e e m a t the Grade 7 l e v e l ?  The  r e s u l t s o f the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f the data o f  t h i s p a r t i c u l a r sample, as o u t l i n e d i n Table 7 and Table  51  8,  would  suggest  between of  the  one  gender or  analysis little 7  there  perceptions  any  before  that  testing  of  of  the  data  relation  really  no  significant  self-esteem  in  boys  is  no  periods.  h a v i n g more after  is  positive  study.  the  versus  actual  than  improvement  of  girls  over  evidence  the  other,  according  p a r t i c u l a r sample,  to  either  the  gender  self-esteem  of  has  at  the  Grade  level.  B.  Although difference after it  esteem  Therefore,  from t h i s to  There  difference  an  in  the  formal data  indicated  the  self-esteem  of  extended  did provide  student  reasons  such  a  level  time of  studies  which  an  for  over  this  span,  one  conducted that  arrives remains  several  insight  maturity.  conclusion person  period of  self-esteem  many  years  substantiates construction individuals  Conclusions  "at at  a general  a  of  her  preceding  appraisal  to  he  show a  p.  5).  when  scale  "based  consistent  be  over greater  to  the  childhood,  or  her  a  worth,  a  period  of  that  the  Piers  findings is  general  reliability  came  his  in  a l l ,  and e n d u r i n g o v e r  1981,  52  of  middle  of  activities,  There could  test-retest 1967,  students  change  First  students  after  relatively  of  month p e r i o d .  expect  (Coopersmith,  groups learning  change.  stable  Coopersmith's  hold  six  time  significant  significant  Coopersmith i n some  and use  a  positive  relatively "  the  However, by  two  cooperative  into  would  the  no  she on  view  states the of  belief  that  themselves,  which p.  develops  and  stabilizes  childhood"  1984,  (Piers,  43). A second  concept  over  learning, esteem. that  plausible time,  is  did actually Piers  once  "in children,  again  1984, p.  the  research  Aronson) study.  and  the  Perhaps  situation  in  accepted,  more  situation  can  which  would  to  activities  the deal  with  s/he  really  help  had  social  data  from  end  from  those  past  this  open  to  of  can  joined  validate  within  the  the The  given  interpretation, Learning  in  students.  the  principal  work o f  the  researcher,  year.  S/he  the  was  reason  the  skills.  53  could  teaching  of  the and  had expected  Grade  very  study  informal  April,  the  this  widely  self-esteem  in  over  thrive.  more  s/he  states  Sharan,  Cooperative  experience,  and  when  provides  varied  she  stable  to  study.  that  problems  some o f  learning  the  self-  more  help  usually  positive  ongoing  discipline to  are  theory  when  Slavin,  learning  triangulate  the  theory  would  self-  their  increasingly  as  in  cooperative  improve  self-concepts  data  more  the  information,  brothers,  the  to  change  initially  educators  although  the  perhaps  cooperative  positive  to  create  that  This  students'  the  this  is  cooperative  support  more  that  such  formal  near  confirms  43).  informal  discussed  comment  hoped  the  can  One d a y , school  the  follows,  help  students  and becomes  Johnson  which  Although  data  of  for  treatment,  self-concept  time" with  the  cause  dependent  (Piers,  explanation  that  situationally  the  during  7 classes  pleased, be  made to than  and  attributed  to  and r e i n f o r c i n g  of  well  The  Grade  the  students  celebrated students  and  to  researcher  the  Social  Group  the  weaknesses,  copy  much a s  to  with  be  March  their  was It  the  report  students  to  own p a r e n t s , strategy  appeared  plan  to that  would  them  made  to  Perhaps  the  was  fact  of  be  sit  doing  best  no  testing  The  researcher  praise  students really  how  the that  content  d i d not  also  period. when  that need  through  of  the  the  asked  they verbal  felt  Social  where  At  the  encouraged although children  Studies. with  the  study  removing h i s / h e r of  following were  reinforcement  the  child  year.  d u r i n g the on  students  the  much  Studies  their  support  task  forgot  together,  from t h e i r  Social  for  encouragement  comfortable  54  to  forth  it.  that  course  A l t h o u g h some  not  Social  teachers  than  students  The  interviews,  parental  the  and  but  in  interpreted  the  card  had put  behavior  other  Sociometric  term.  these,  students  for  over  the  final  considered  noted  Most o f  other,  stated  parent  of  of  own r e p o r t  the  and e n j o y i n g  procedures  lessons:  each  well  teacher  classroom  comments  indication  that  one-hour  with  formal  the  the  the  for  have  to  Studies  to  commented  strengths  their  the  from  on  and  feedback  fun" with  their  most  the  the  comments  listing  read  interpreted  researcher  researcher  the  write  interviews,  appeared  positive  One t e a c h e r  card,  permitted  and had  parents  made  were w o r k i n g ,  "having  Parent-Teacher  no  both  groups  researcher.  appeared  and a  them.  thought,  the  successes  the  his  for  researcher  teachers  Studies.  asked  comments  within  student  the  For  7 classroom  most to  was, and  group.  the  One g r o u p o f grouping work  two  were  so  together for  possible  under  a l l  they  of  the  the  to  feel  help,  and  free  the  with  units.  noted to  other  ask  students  group  the  added  of  student  the  (due  group,  An  perform  well.  One  class that  the  boy  that  In  researcher  was  the  low-achieving in  work  not  students  their  develop  of  program)  the  all  study.  to  group  patience  helping catch  mark  on  for and  to  help  learning  the  up  to  One part-  the  rest  that  some  tests.  researcher  research  the  with a  large  few  of  found  their  added  really  been  more v o c a l  encouraged  in  groups  motivation  assigned  little  to  on-task  intervened.  the  a  accepted  by  group,  an a l m o s t  the some the  and  found  group. took  impossible  a l l  friends,  and  On n u m e r o u s  place  until  sociometrically  55  a l l  structure,  small  Three g i r l s ,  the  hold  has  ideas.  class,  behavior In  learning  within  same  groupings  students  initially  their  occurred randomly.  class  the  cooperative  randomly grouped  were  occasions  became  were  the  condition one  been  who h a d n o t  group,  In  this  learning difficulties.  independent  problems  opinions.  they  could  group.  of  students  outside  This  traditionally vocal  that  they  Unfortunately  began  with  random  could  and m a i n t a i n a p a s s i n g  had done  the  asked  responsibility  was  which  students  a pull-out  added b e n e f i t  students  within  to  in  the  they  some  other  students  time  way  in  i f  of  that  for  on  the  students  specifically  understanding took  female  conditions  researcher  began  a n d two  pleased  that  together  The  male  the  grouped  class,  the  researcher  girls  to  work  experienced the  allowed together  problems  group dynamics  groups  of  diversity  one  friends was  on  group of their  keeping  became  a  last  on  unit.  task.  learning  who w o r k e d  needed  friends,  within  boys  This  in  experience, finally  to  cause  and  group  However,  together groups  two  to  case  the  realized  them  also  each  and  two  that  work  more  effectively. The  researcher  benefits  of  the  Although  was  study  this  encouraged  body  of  research  was  neither  method  for  cooperative  implications informal of  reliable student esteem  of  most  changing help  educate  this  the  It to  challenge, should  not  teacher  fringe  and  any  child  to  independent  benefits  to  group  56  grouping  testing  and  self-esteem  groups.  Perhaps  is  the  s t i l l  most  teaching the  and  self-  greater  deals  with into  to  the an  be  from  regardless  ever-  facilitators,  and m o t i v a t e d  derived  the  in  enhance  fit  that  undoubtedly  actual  to  teachers  overlooked,  chooses  the  lead  curriculum  whole  become  groups  could  the  Formal  learning  skills  encourages  be  today.  with  indicate  are  improvement  coupled  2000  the  there  organizing  students,  The Year  students  in  social  the  society.  learning which  to  of  teachers an  to  h i n d e r e d by  cooperative  This,  p r a c t i c i n g of  necessity  With  in  nor  appeared  learning,  indicate  judgement  standard.  achievement.  to  who w o r k  teacher's  helped  classroom  observations  students  the  for  the  conducted.  self-esteem used  b y many o f  learners.  cooperative of  students.  the  way  in  C.  This  part  of  Limitations of  the  study  factors  which  could  esteem,  as  may r e l a t e  It  also  discusses  of  the  it  results  Although study,  it  teaching  style  self-esteem? personality  by  of  this  because  of  they  that  we  culture  practiced  in  this  personality  are  in  in  this  are  some  in  a different be  a multi-ethnic  play  not  both  of  of  social the  in  teachers  teaching  57  by  of  the  student or  learning be  affected  cooperative to  Some do  the  process  style?  affected  by  the  obvious  cultures  others.  What  role  students? skills  Social  operate  impact  motivation  self-esteem  than  the  self-esteem?  varied  society.  of  for  on  the  learning  often  self-esteem  context  have  indifferent  obviously  study,  data.  generalizability  would  helped  or  more  self-  the  how m u c h  student  student  students  to  of  teaching  would  influence  How w o u l d  seems  other  student  the  consider  aware  The c l a s s r o o m study  to  the  more  style  the  did a l l  becoming  Are a l l  to  of  population.  on  operate  are  as  have  7 program does  subjects. in  are  a variety  interpretation  teacher  cooperation  Although  Grade  the  techniques,  cultivate does  teacher  students.  Learning fact  different  Study  influenced  limitations  interesting  or  with  have the  researcher  be  factor?  learning  to  How m u c h o f . a n  Teachers styles  a  the  would  possibly  some  to  deals  the  were  Studies  taught lessons,  a vacuum from the  two  "Quest  and the  other  classes  Program"  involved relating  to  social  were  skills  also  learning  some o f groups  improvement The of  the  size 20  in  The in  only  be  other  the  larger  larger  or  to  of  for  did  of  under to  general  from It  one  is  the  of  21  and  sample  for  study  to  deal  become  by  theory  the  a  not  similar  results  can of  distinguishable  Research  with  some o f  involved and a l l  educators,  with  in  or  results?  Further  will  whether  representative have  the  specific  difficult  school  really  with  scrutiny  combine  generalizability  samples  Perhaps  Cooperative Learning  close  two  other  area.  interfere  the  any  this  researchers  have  the  l i m i t a t i o n was  derived  sample  Implications  section  for  experimentation,  urban  Was t h e  could  which  population?  additional  7 classes  opportunities  results  community.  Now t h a t  in  practice  further  its  there  the  facets are  great  and to  do  study,  that  research.  Considering trying  Will  small  a  skills,  cooperative  the  The major  specific  studies.  further  sample.  to  was  D.  come  pertain  study  in  possibilities  the  this  which  This  in  these  self-esteem.  limitations  localized.  features  practiced  would g e n e r a l i z e  or  Perhaps  partially responsible  the  without  Grade  one  the  for  one  results  location,  of  to  data  determine, the  were  sample.  generalize  school  the  following  the  adolescents.  student  results  of  for  to  the  generalize  major the  limitation  results  58  of  a  of  this  small  sample  to  a  of  population, of  the  this  directly  used  on  to  study,  suggested  encourage  were  it  and these  and by  replication  If,  Were t h e r e  any  particular  suggest,  the  childhood,  expect  to  have  results  of  Intermediate  determine  up  to  this  into  Home,  Intellectual  in  strands than  one  of  a  the  where  what  student  be  on  begins  age  student  could a  Did  another? seem  to  stabilize teacher  self-esteem?  replicated within  the  cooperative  both  to  her  among  others?  strand over  student  on  differences  and C o o p e r s m i t h (1981)  study  because  many o f  backgrounds,  is  teachers  could  apparent  in  diversity  (1984)  a major impact  whether  nationality  not  Could  other  Grades?  Finally, multi-ethnic  more  significant  self-concept  during  Social,  (Behavior,  significant  self-esteem  more  Piers  organized  and S a t i s f a c t i o n )  any  as  w h i c h were  P h y s i c a l Appearance and A t t r i b u t e s ,  are  become  c o u l d be  Piers  there  affected  collected  by C o o p e r s m i t h ( G e n e r a l ,  inventory,  Status,  see  learning  the  the  much d a t a  P o p u l a r i t y , and Happiness  strands.  gender  study,  in  his  School  Anxiety, test  the  strands  School) and  would c e r t a i n l y  strategies.  During  the  study  a  or  studies first-  predictor of  focus  certain  that  not  seems  on  our  the  schools c o u l d be  or  positive  necessary  they in  grouping.  59  students  conducted  of  to  second-generation  positive  cultures,  have  self-esteem.  self-esteem  that  could capitalize any  cooperative  If  on  seems the  learning  BIBLIOGRAPHY A n d e r s e n , M., N e l s o n , L . R., Fox, R. G. & G r u b e r , S. E . ( 1 9 8 8 ) . "Integrating Cooperative L e a r n i n g and S t r u c t u r e d L e a r n i n g : E f f e c t i v e A p p r o a c h e s t o Teaching S o c i a l S k i l l s " . F o c u s On E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n . 20(9), 1-8. Aronson, E. (1978). The J i g s a w Hills: Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s .  Classroom.  Beverly  B r a n d t , R. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . "On C o o p e r a t i o n i n S c h o o l s : C o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h D a v i d and R o g e r J o h n s o n " . E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p . 45_(3), 14-19.  A  C o o p e r s m i t h , S. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . Self-Esteem Inventories. Alto: C o n s u l t i n g P s y c h o l o g i s t s Press, Inc.  Palo  D a v i d s o n , N. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . " S m a l l - g r o u p L e a r n i n g and T e a c h i n g i n M a t h e m a t i c s : A S e l e c t i v e Review o f the R e s e a r c h " . In R . E . S l a v i n , S . S h a r a n , S.Kagan, R . H e r t z - L a z a r o w i t z , C.Webb, and R.Schmuck ( E d s . ) . L e a r n i n g t o C o o p e r a t e , C o o p e r a t i n g t o L e a r n (pp. 2 1 1 - 2 3 0 ) . New Y o r k : Plenum. D e p a r t m e n t o f C o o p e r a t i o n and C o o p e r a t i v e D e v e l o p m e n t . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Working Together, L e a r n i n g Together1 Regina: Teaching Materials Centre. D i s h o n , D. & O ' L e a r y , P. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . A Guidebook f o r C o o p e r a t i v e L e a r n i n g ; A T e c h n i g u e F o r C r e a t i n g More E f f e c t i v e Schools. Holmes B e a c h , F l o r i d a : L e a r n i n g P u b l i c a t i o n s , Inc. Hughes, H. M. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . " M e a s u r e s o f S e l f - C o n c e p t and S e l f E s t e e m f o r C h i l d r e n Ages 3-12 Y e a r s : A R e v i e w and Recommendations". C l i n i c a l P s y c h o l o g y Review, 4, 657-692. J o h n s o n , D. W. & J o h n s o n , R. T. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Learning T o g e t h e r And A l o n e . Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e H a l l , Inc. J o h n s o n , D. W. & J o h n s o n , R. T. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . "The S o c i a l i z a t i o n and A c h i e v e m e n t C r i s i s : Are Cooperative L e a r n i n g E x p e r i e n c e s t h e S o l u t i o n ? " I n L. Bickman ( E d . ) , A p p l i e d S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y A n n u a l 4, B e v e r l y H i l l s , CA: Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s . J o h n s o n , D. W. & J o h n s o n , R. T. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . Learning T o g e t h e r and A l o n e . Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e H a l l , Inc.  60  J o h n s o n , D. W., J o h n s o n , R. T., & H o l u b e c , E . J . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . C i r c l e s o f Learning: Cooperation i n the Classroom. E d i n a , M i n n e s o t a : I n t e r a c t i o n Book Company. J o h n s o n , D. W., J o h n s o n , R. T. & Maruyama, G. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . " I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e and I n t e r p e r s o n a l A t t r a c t i o n Among H e t e r o g e n e o u s and Homogeneous I n d i v i d u a l s : A Theoretical F o r m u l a t i o n and a M e t a - A n a l y s i s o f t h e R e s e a r c h . " Review o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . 53., 5-54. J o h n s o n , D.W., Maruyama, G., J o h n s o n , R., N e l s o n , D., & Skon, L. (1981). " E f f e c t s o f C o o p e r a t i v e , C o m p e t i t i v e , and I n d i v i d u a l i s t i c G o a l S t r u c t u r e s on A c h i e v e m e n t : A MetaAnalysis". P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n . 89, 47-62. M i l l e r , N., B r e w e r , M. B. & Edwards, K. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . "Cooperative I n t e r a c t i o n i n Desegregated S e t t i n g s : Laboratory Analogue". Journal of Social Issues. 4 1 ( 3 ) , 63-79.  A  M i t c h e l l , J . V. J r . (Ed.) ( 1 9 8 5 ) . The N i n t h M e n t a l Measurements Yearbook. L i n c o l n , Nebraska: U n i v e r s i t y Nebraska.  of  Moorman, C. & D i s h o n , D. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . Our C l a s s r o o m . We Can Learn Together. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , Inc. Newmann, F.M. & Thompson, J . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . E f f e c t s of Cooperative L e a r n i n g on A c h i e v e m e n t i n S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l s : A Summary o f Research. M a d i s o n , WI: U n i v e r s i t y o f W i s c o n s i n , N a t i o n a l C e n t e r on E f f e c t i v e S e c o n d a r y S c h o o l s . P i e r s , E . V. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Piers-Harris Children's Self-Concept Scale. Los A n g e l e s : Western P s y c h o l o g i c a l S e r v i c e s . P r o v i n c e o f B r i t i s h Columbia - M i n i s t r y o f E d u c a t i o n . (1990). Y e a r 2000: A Framework f o r L e a r n i n g . V i c t o r i a : Ministry of Education. Rhoades, J . , & McCabe, M. E . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Simple Cooperation In the Classroom. Willits, California; Publications.  ITA  Roark, A. E . & S h a r a h , H. S. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . "Factors R e l a t e d t o Group C o h e s i v e n e s s " . S m a l l Group B e h a v i o r . 62-69.  20,  R o s s , J . A. ( 1 9 8 8 ) . "Improving S o c i a l - E n v i r o n m e n t a l S t u d i e s Problem S o l v i n g Through C o o p e r a t i v e L e a r n i n g " . American E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h J o u r n a l . 25, 573-591.  61  S a p o n - S h e v i n , M. & S c h n i e d e w i n d , N. ( 1 9 9 0 ) . "Selling Cooperative L e a r n i n g Without S e l l i n g I t Short". E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p , 47.(4), 63-65. S c h o o l D i s t r i c t #30. ( 1 9 8 9 ) . L o n g Range P l a n . B.C.: S c h o o l D i s t r i c t #30.  Ashcroft,  S h a r a n , S. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . "Cooperative L e a r n i n g i n Small Groups: Recent Methods and E f f e c t s on A c h i e v e m e n t , A t t i t u d e s , and E t h n i c R e l a t i o n s " . R e v i e w o f E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . 5 0 ( 2 ) , 241-271. S h a r a n , S. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Cooperative Learning i n the Classroom. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum A s s o c i a t e s , Publishers. S h a r a n , Y. & S h a r a n , S. ( 1 9 8 7 ) . " T r a i n i n g Teachers f o r Cooperative Learning". Educational Leadership. 4 5 ( 3 ) , 20-25. S l a v i n , R. E . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . "Cooperative Learning". E d u c a t i o n a l R e s e a r c h . 50. 315-342.  Review o f  S l a v i n , R. E . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . " S y n t h e s i s o f R e s e a r c h on C o o p e r a t i v e Learning". E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p . 3 8 ( 8 ) , 655-660. S l a v i n , R. E . ( 1 9 8 3 a ) . Longman.  Cooperative  Learning.  New  York:  S l a v i n , R. E . ( 1 9 8 3 b ) . S t u d e n t Team L e a r n i n g : An O v e r v i e w and P r a c t i c a l G u i d e . W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.: N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n Association. S l a v i n , R. E . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . "Learning Together". E d u c a t o r . 1 0 ( 2 ) , 6-13.  American  S l a v i n , R. E . ( 1 9 8 7 a ) . " C o o p e r a t i v e L e a r n i n g and t h e Cooperative School". E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p . 45.(3), S l a v i n , R. E . ( 1 9 8 7 b ) . Cooperative Learning: Student Washington, D . C ; N a t i o n a l E d u c a t i o n A s s o c i a t i o n , S l a v i n , R. E . ( 1 9 8 7 c ) . " C o o p e r a t i v e L e a r n i n g : Where B e h a v i o r a l and H u m a n i s t i c A p p r o a c h e s t o C l a s s r o o m M o t i v a t i o n Meet". The E l e m e n t a r y S c h o o l J o u r n a l . 29-36.  7-13.  Teams. 1987.  88(1),  S l a v i n , R. E . ( 1 9 8 7 d ) . "When Does C o o p e r a t i v e L e a r n i n g Increase Student Achievement?" Psychological Bulletin. 94, 429-445. S l a v i n , R. E . ( 1 9 8 8 a ) . " C o o p e r a t i v e L e a r n i n g and S t u d e n t Achievement". E d u c a t i o n a l L e a d e r s h i p , 4 6 ( 2 ) , 31-33.  62  S l a v i n , R. E . (1988b). "Synthesis o f Research on Grouping Elementary and Secondary Schools". Educational Leadership, 46(1)/ 67-77. S l a v i n , R. E . (1989). School Hillsdale, N . J . : Lawrence  in  and Classroom Organization. Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.  S l a v i n , R. E . (1990). "Research Consensus and Controversy". 47(4), 52-54.  on Cooperative Learning: Educational Leadership.  S l a v i n , R. E . & Karweit, N. L . (1981). "Cognitive and Affective Outcomes o f a n I n t e n s i v e S t u d e n t Team L e a r n i n g Experience". Journal of Experimental Education. 50. 29-35. Stanford, G . (1977). Groups. New Y o r k  Developing Effective Classroom City: H a r t P u b l i s h i n g Company,  Inc.  S u l l i v a n , B . M . (Comm)(1988). A Legacy f o r Learners. The Report o f the Royal Commission on E d u c a t i o n . Victoria: Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Vermette, P. (1988). "Cooperative Grouping i n the Classroom: Turning Students into Active Learners". S o c i a l S t u d i e s . 79. 271-273.  The  Webb, N . M . ( 1 9 8 4 ) . "Sex D i f f e r e n c e s i n I n t e r a c t i o n a n d Achievement i n Cooperative Small Groups." Journal of Educational Psychology. 76(4), 33-44. Webb, N . M . ( 1 9 8 5 ) . "Student I n t e r a c t i o n and L e a r n i n g i n Small Groups: A R e s e a r c h Summary." In S l a v i n , R . E . , S h a r a n , S . , K a g a n , S . , H e r t z - L a z a r o w i t z , R . , Webb, C , & Schmuck, R. ( E d s . ) . Learning to Cooperate. Cooperating to Learn. (pp. 147-172). New Y o r k : Plenum. W i e r s m a , W. ( 1 9 8 6 ) . Research Methods i n E d u c a t i o n : Introduction. Toronto: A l l y n and Bacon, I n c .  63  An  APPENDICES  i  64  APPENDIX A  Summary o f t h e L i t e r a t u r e Relating to Cooperative Learning  65  SYNOPSIS OF LITERATURE RELATING TO COOPERATIVE LEARNING SELF  AUTHOR  Andersen (1988) Pos Aronson (1978) Brandt (1987) Davidson (1985) Dept. o f Coop (1983) Dishon/O'Leary(1984) Johnson/Johnson(75) Johnson/Johnson(83) Pos Johnson/Johnson(87) Pos Johnson e t a l (86) Johnson e t a l (83) Johnson e t a l (81) M i l l e r e t a l (85) Moorman/Dishon(83) Newmann/Thompson(87) Rhoades/McCabe(85) Roark/Sharah(89) Ross (1988) Sapon-Shevin/ (90) Sharan (1980) Sharan (1984) Sharan/Sharan(1987) S l a v i n (1980) S l a v i n (1981 ) S l a v i n (1983a) S l a v i n (1983b) S l a v i n (1986) S l a v i n (1987a) S l a v i n (1987b) S l a v i n (1987c) S l a v i n (1987d) S l a v i n (1988a)  Pos  same  ACIIIEV. pos/low  COOP/ COMP  ETHNJ  Pos/Ages/Subj Rote=0  Pos  Pos  Pos Same  Pos Same  Pos Pos/Jig Pos Pos Pos  Pos Pos Pos  Pos  Pos  Pos  Pos  (1988b) (1989)  Pos  Slavin  (1990)  pos  Pos  Pos/most  Yes  Pos  Yes  Pos Pos  Yes Yes  Pos pos/TGT  Pos Same Pos Pos Pos  Pos  Pos/ pos/sub mnstr pos  pos/goals pos/ind.account pos pos/consensus 26 (19Pos/7=0) pos/Math  Learning  A d v i c e on G r o u p i n g s A d v i c e on G r o u p i n g s Soc. i s o l a t e s i n t e g r a t e  Pos/work Pos Pos/Teach-Subj Pos/Teach/Subj  Pos  researchers  A d v i c e on Coop.  pos/goals Pos Pos Pos  COMMENTS Quotes o t h e r  Yes  Pos/Some types  Slavin Slavin  Slavin/Karweit(81) S t a n f o r d (1977) Vermette (1988) Webb (1984) Webb (1985)  SCHOOL  OTHERS  quicker  A l s o Pos f o r D i s a b l e d & NonReview o f R e s e a r c h F i n d i n g s Hetero-/Homogeneous Comparison G r o u p i n g Data Quote.Johnson and Johnson S u c c e s s f u l a t S r . High l e v e l ? ? ? I n f o r m a t i o n on G r o u p i n g s As r e l a t e s t o P s y c h o t h e r a p y Quotes o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s Comments o n l y Review o f R e s e a r c h on D i f f . S t y l e s 6hrs/wk t o o s h o r t - S e c o n d a r y - b a s e d For T e a c h e r s : How t o S e t Up Synthesis of studies Compar. o f S t y l e s o f Coop L e a r n i n g Varying Techniques Discussion Student Teams S t a t e g y Discussion D i s c u s s i o n - quotes other  Pos  research  Study o f D i f f . forms o f C-L Grouping S t y l e s Reviews o f R e s e a r c h  Urban/Rural=0 D i s c u s s i o n o f Groups D i s c u s s i o n o f Groups Male/Fern. D i f f . i n coop g r o u p s Quotes o t h e r r e s e a r c h e r s  APPENDIX B (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)  Superintendent's L e t t e r o f P e r m i s s i o n Approval o f E t h i c s Committee a t U.B.C. P r i n c i p a l ' s L e t t e r t o Parents P a r e n t a l Consent Form  67  ASHCROFT ELEMENTARY  P.O. Box 40, 711 H i l l S t r e e t , A s h c r o f t , B.C. VOK 1A0 PHONE: 453-9177 FAX: 453-9040  SCHOOL  CONSENT FORM TITLE OF PROJECT:  INVESTIGATOR:  Cooperative Learning A c t i v i t i e s : The Study o f Random Groupings and S o c i o m e t r i c G r o u p i n g s and T h e i r Impact on S e l f - E s t e e m .  E s t h e r Lang (as p a r t i a l requirement f o r a Master of A r t s Degree from UBC) A s h c r o f t Elementary S c h o o l  FACULTY ADVISOR:  Dr. F. P i e r o n e k ,  Graduate S t u d i e s , UBC.  A s h c r o f t Elementary S c h o o l has been s e l e c t e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n a p r o j e c t t h a t w i l l be t a k i n g p l a c e d u r i n g t h i s s c h o o l y e a r . The p r o j e c t i s d e s i g n e d t o study s t u d e n t r e a c t i o n t o b e i n g p l a c e d i n l e a r n i n g groups. T h i s i s important t o a l l o w s t u d e n t s t o f e e l good about t h e i r l e a r n i n g situation. The s t u d e n t s i n v o l v e d w i l l be asked t o complete a s e r i e s o f q u e s t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h e i r f e e l i n g s , a t t h r e e d i f f e r e n t times d u r i n g t h e s c h o o l y e a r . The p r o j e c t w i l l t a k e no more than a t o t a l o f t h r e e h o u r s . Your c h i l d ' s name w i l l not appear on t h e s u r v e y . You may take your c h i l d o u t o f t h e p r o j e c t a t any time. H i s / h e r n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n o r w i t h d r a w a l from t h e p r o j e c t w i l l n o t i n f l u e n c e o r d i n a r y s c h o o l achievements and w i l l n o t a f f e c t h i s / h e r c l a s s standing. I f you have any q u e s t i o n s , p l e a s e do n o t h e s i t a t e t o c a l l Miss Lang a t t h e school.  Complete and Return by October 19. 1990 Project:  Student  L e a r n i n g Groups  I am w i l l i n g t o a l l o w my c h i l d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the p r o j e c t .  Yes No  I hereby acknowledge t h a t I have r e c e i v e d a copy o f t h e c o n s e n t form.  Parent(s)  Signature:  Date:  71  APPENDIX C  (i)  Sample  Cooperative  Learning Lesson  on  Sumer  (ii)  Sample  Cooperative  Learning Lesson  on  Egypt  (iii)  Sample  Cooperative  Learning Lesson  on  Greece  (iv)  Sample  Student  Informal  Social  (v)  Sample  Student  Informal  Personal  72  Studies  Survey  Success  Form  Form  GRADE TOPIC:  7  SOCIAL Sumer -  STUDIES Religion  ONE HOUR and  22  STUDENTS/CLASS  Government  INSTRUCTIONAL O B J E C T I V E S : t h e s t u d e n t w i l l be a b l e t o e x p l a i n the r o l e o f r e l i g i o n and government i n the l i v e s o f the people. MATERIALS: C i v i l i z a t i o n s o f the Past (photocopied) p. 5 4 - 5 7 a n d 60 - 61 Other P l a c e s , Other Times (text) p . 44 - 46 ASSIGNMENT TO GROUPS: s o c i o m e t r i c (Dan) random (Roger) ROLES: j i g s a w f o r m a t - one e x p e r t p e r 2 pages THE LESSON TASK: Each s t u d e n t e x p e r t w i l l study h i s paper and e x p l a i n i n h i s own w o r d s w h a t h e h a s l e a r n e d a b o u t r e l i g i o n o r government. Then e a c h team w i l l p r o v i d e answers t o t h e following questions: 1. G i v e t h e t h r e e most i m p o r t a n t r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f s o f the Sumerians. 2. D e s c r i b e w h a t a z i g g u r a t l o o k e d l i k e a n d why i t was b u i l t t h a t w a y . 3. Who d i d t h e l u g a l r e p r e s e n t ? What was t h e j o b o f the lugal? 4. How d i d t h e S u m e r i a n s f i n d o u t w h a t t h e g o d s wanted them t o do? 5. What p o w e r s d i d t h e l u g a l h a v e ? Give 5 examples. P O S I T I V E INTERDEPENDENCE: goal oriented. Bonus p o i n t s (10) for a l l c o r r e c t answers. Bonus p o i n t s f o r k e e p i n g on t a s k and s h a r i n g work l o a d . INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY: group product; jigsaw = mini experts C R I T E R I A FOR SUCCESS: completion of exercises EXPECTED BEHAVIORS: sharing information, sharing workload, discussion, taking turns. SOCIAL S K I L L TEACHING SKILLS PRACTICED: s h a r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n , s h a r i n g w o r k l o a d , d i s c u s s i o n as t o c o r r e c t n e s s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f answer, taking turns C R I T E R I A F O R S U C C E S S : B e g i n w i t h 10 p o i n t s , a n d k e e p t h e m a l l by b e i n g o n t a s k U S E REWARDED B Y : team bonus points M O N I T O R I N G AND P R O C E S S I N G MONITORING B Y : TEACHERS MONITOR F O R : k e e p i n g o n t a s k PROCESS B Y : teacher observation; student informal  73  observation  GRADE TOPIC:  7  SOCIAL  STUDIES  Middle  Kingdom:  ONE HOUR  21  STUDENTS/CLASS  Economy and Government  INSTRUCTIONAL O B J E C T I V E S : t h e s t u d e n t w i l l be a b l e u s e t h e i r knowledge o f h i s t o r y to s o l v e problems. M A T E R I A L S : O t h e r P l a c e s , O t h e r T i m e s ( t e x t ) p . 87 - 9 0 ; strategy sheet ASSIGNMENT TO GROUPS: s o c i o m e t r i c (Dan) random (Roger) R O L E S : G r o u p L e a d e r - §2 / C h e c k e r / R e c o r d e r - §3 Reporter #4 THE LESSON TASK: The student s h o u l d have p r e v i o u s l y r e a d the t e x t , as o u t l i n e d on t h e i r c a l e n d a r . To ensure u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f a l l s t u d e n t s i n g r o u p , team w i l l spend f i v e m i n u t e s i n o r a l r e v i e w of readings. Teacher w i l l administer short quiz to establish whether o r not s t u d e n t s have r e a d the m a t e r i a l . Lowest q u i z s c o r e w i l l be team s c o r e . S t u d e n t s w i l l be a s s i g n e d r o l e s , and a s k e d t o b r a i n s t o r m ideas f o r worksheet exercise. L a s t 15 m i n u t e s o f c l a s s t i m e w i l l b e g i v e n t o o r a l reports r e l a t i n g to question. P O S I T I V E INTERDEPENDENCE: r o l e s - Leader to keep t h i n g s on t r a c k - Recorder to take notes - Reporter to give o r a l report INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY: o r a l r e p o r t g i v e n by s p o k e s p e r s o n C R I T E R I A FOR S U C C E S S : g o o d i n f o r m a t i o n i n f i n a l r e p o r t ; thought EXPECTED BEHAVIORS: e n c o u r a g i n g e a c h o t h e r .  SOCIAL S K I L L TEACHING SKILL PRACTICED: g i v i n g p u t - u p s , e n c o u r a g i n g DEFINED: p o s i t i v e l y e n c o u r a g i n g c l a s s m a t e s  others  M O N I T O R I N G AND P R O C E S S I N G MONITORING B Y : TEACHERS MONITOR F O R : e n c o u r a g i n g , p u t - u p s ; c a l c u l a t e WHO i s g i v i n g them INTERVENE I F : one p e r s o n i s g i v i n g a l l t h e e n c o u r a g e m e n t , or i f t h e t o n e o f the team becomes n e g a t i v e f o r any r e a s o n . PROCESS B Y : t e a c h e r s h e e t s END B Y : d e b r i e f i n g - t e a c h e r a n d s t u d e n t  74  EGYPT TASK SHEET FOR MIDDLE  KINGDOM  -  ECONOMY AND GOVERNMENT  You a r e K i n g A k h t o y ' s t r u s t e d a d v i s o r s . The k i n g has asked t h a t you develop a p l a n to ensure the s a f e t y o f the Egyptians. Over the p a s t s e v e r a l decades i n v a d e r s have r a i d e d Egypt and a t t a c k e d v i l l a g e s . The kingdom has been s p l i t a p a r t b y w a r r i n g NOMARCHS. K i n g Akhtoy i s c o u n t i n g on you to r e t u r n Egypt to the s p l e n d o r o f the O l d Kingdom. What w i l l y o u a d v i s e K i n g Akhtoy t o do?  I ( M i s s L a n g ) am K i n g A k h t o y . I w i l l l i s t e n to your presentations ( O r a l l y ) and w e i g h them a c c o r d i n g t o t h e a d v i c e y o u g i v e me. I r e s e r v e t h e r i g h t t o a s k q u e s t i o n s i f I do n o t understand. W h a t y o u t e l l me w i l l m a k e me d e c i d e t h e m e r i t o f your position? W i l l I r e t a i n y o u o r make y o u a s l a v e ? (25 p o i n t s w i l l be a s s i g n e d t o t h e g r o u p s w i t h t h e b e s t suggestions.)  HERE A R E T H E ROLES  FOR TODAY.  Leadership Duties: Ensures that everyone understands the task. Begins the d i s c u s s i o n . Makes s u r e e v e r y o n e s t i c k s t o t h e task. E n c o u r a g e s e v e r y member t o c o n t r i b u t e . Maintains time schedule. Ensures a conclusion is reached.  Recorder Duties: Take notes i n b r i e f form. Summarize what s p e a k e r has s a i d . Ask q u e s t i o n s o f speaker t o c l a r i f y  idea.  Reporter Duties: Listen carefully. T h i n k a b o u t what i s s a i d . C o n t r i b u t e y o u r own i d e a s . R e r e a d what r e c o r d e r has w r i t t e n  you  75  so  can  understand  it.  GRADE 7 SOCIAL STUDIES TOPIC: C o m p a r i s o n o f l i f e  ONE  HOUR  i n Sparta  21  STUDENTS/CLASS  and Athens  INSTRUCTIONAL OBJECTIVES: t h e s t u d e n t w i l l be a b l e t o u s e r e s e a r c h m a t e r i a l t o compare a n d c o n t r a s t l i f e i n S p a r t a with l i f e i n Athens. MATERIALS: C i v i l i z a t i o n s o f the Past p . 110-111; O t h e r P l a c e s , O t h e r T i m e s ( t e x t ) p . 125-132 - o n e w o r k s h e e t p e r team ASSIGNMENT TO GROUPS: s o c i o m e t r i c (Dan) random ( R o g e r ) ROLES: #3 = l e a d e r t o k e e p g r o u p o n t a s k #4 = r e c o r d e r - one s e t o f i n f o r m a t i o n t o p h o t o c o p i e d . TASK:  THE LESSON S t u d e n t s s p e n d f i v e m i n u t e s d i s c u s s i n g what t h e y have read i n preparation f o r today's e x e r c i s e . Recorder w r i t e s 5 major p o i n t s from t o d a y ' s l e s s o n r e a d i n g s . Students then begin e x e r c i s e t o d i s c u s s and r e c o r d ideas comparing l i f e i n Sparta with l i f e i n Athens. S t u d e n t s then d i s c u s s which p l a c e they would p r e f e r t o l i v e , a n d why?  P O S I T I V E INTERDEPENDENCE: a s i n g l e copy p r o d u c t , p r o d u c e d by g r o u p e f f o r t , a n d i n i t i a l l e d f o r a g r e e m e n t . INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY: e a c h p e r s o n must p e r f o r m r o l e , a n d d i s c u s s i d e a s from h i s / h e r p e r s p e c t i v e ; compromising CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS: w o r k i n g t o g e t h e r c o o p e r a t i v e t o complete one p r o d u c t . EXPECTED BEHAVIORS: c r i t i c a l l i s t e n i n g , o n t a s k , d i s c u s s i o n , negotiation. SOCIAL S K I L L TEACHING S K I L L PRACTICED: negotiating, resolving conflicts. CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS: k e e p i n g on t a s k , c o o p e r a t i n g t o c o m p l e t e t a s k , e n c o u r a g i n g team members, n e g o t i a t i n g USE REWARDED BY: t e a c h e r p r a i s e d u r i n g d e b r i e f i n g MONITORING AND PROCESSING MONITORING BY: b o t h s t u d e n t a n d t e a c h e r MONITOR FOR: m e e t i n g g o a l s , g i v i n g p u t ups, k e e p i n g o n t a s k , cooperating, negotiating INTERVENE I F : g r o u p s c a n n o t s o l v e t h e i r own p r o b l e m s PROCESS BY: S t u d e n t P e r s o n a l S u c c e s s C h a r t s Teacher c h a r t from m o n i t o r i n g each group T e a c h e r g i v i n g g r o u p mark f o r c o o p e r a t i o n END BY: p r a i s i n g g r o u p s f o r what t h e y d i d w e l l .  76  WORKSHEET F O R COMPARISON  OF L I F E  I N S P A R T A AND A T H E N S  Team Name:  F i n d and number a l l the d i f f e r e n c e s you c a n f i n d between S p a r t a and Athens i n terms o f e d u c a t i o n , citizenship, government, and the m i l i t a r y . Include other ideas you f i n d well. SPARTA  as  ATHENS  1 . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10  Come t o a c o n s e n s u s o f o p i n i o n a s t o w h i c h c i t y y o u r g r o u p would wish to l i v e i n . T r y t o g e t a l l y o u r team t o a g r e e , and be a b l e t o g i v e r e a s o n s , o r a l l y , f o r y o u r c h o i c e .  77  STUDENT  INFORMAL  My name  is  My  was  team  SOCIAL  STUDIES  SURVEY  VG  G  S  P  5  4  3  2  5  4  3  2  5  4  3  2  5  4  3  2  5  4  3  2  5  4  3  2  5  4  3  2  5  4  3  2  5  4  3  2  t o l d a l l my t e a m m e m b e r s how m u c h appreciated their efforts  5  4  3  2  I  d i d the d a i l y  5  4  3  2  I  studied  f o r the  group  5  4  3  2  I  studied  f o r the  individual  5  4  3  2  I  enjoyed  being  5  4  3  2  I  enjoyed  the  5  4  3  2  I  made  5  4  3  2  5  4  3  2  I  felt  I  added  I  kept  I  accepted  I  d i d my f a i r  share  of  class  I  d i d my f a i r  share  of  the  I  cooperated  I  learned  My I  team  comfortable  i n my g r o u p  information on  to  group  discussions  task and c a r r i e d out v a r i o u s  with  how t o  was p l e a s e d  my  with  work  gameboard  a l l my t e a m please  members  team  my p e r f o r m a n c e  readings test test  i n my g r o u p  study  of  Egypt  use o f the S o c i a l Studies calendar provided  My o v e r a l l  performance  Comments:  on t h i s  What  I  did well  What  I  c a n do b e t t e r  next  What  I  am w i l l i n g  work o n :  to  roles  unit:  term:  78  VP  PERSONAL My g o a l  for  this  part  S U C C E S S CHART O F of  the  session  is:  DESCRIPTORS lesson, 2-1 d i d n o t r e a d t h e 4 - 1 was n o t o n t a s k i n g r o u p , two 6-1 d i d n o t g i v e a t l e a s t ideas. 8-1 d i d n o t g i v e a t l e a s t one p u t - u p p e r team member, fully 10-1 d i d n o t c o o p e r a t e 1 2 - 1 d i d n o t m e e t my p e r s o n a l goal today.  I - 1 read the l e s s o n . 3 - 1 was o n t a s k i n g r o u p . 5-1 g a v e a t l e a s t two i d e a s . 7-1  gave a t l e a s t one p u t - u p p e r t e a m member 9 - 1 c o o p e r a t e d f u l l y w i t h my I I - 1 m e t my p e r s o n a l g o a l today.  April  9  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  April  10  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  April  11  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  April  16  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  April  17  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  April  23  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  April  24  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  April  25  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  April  30  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  The  even  NOTE: A l o t o f o d d n u m b e r s mean y o u a r e d o i n g numbers i n d i c a t e w h e r e y o u n e e d t o make s o m e c h a n g e s .  79  well.  

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.831.1-0100536/manifest

Comment

Related Items