Journal of Peer Learning

Volume 10 Article 6

2017

Relative Effectiveness of Computer-Supported

Jigsaw II, STAD and TAI Cooperative Learning
Strategies on Performance, Attitude, and Retention
of Secondary School Students in Physics
Amosa Isiaka Gambari
Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria, [email protected]

Mudasiru Olalere Yusuf

Department of Educational Technology, Faculty of Education, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/ajpl

Recommended Citation
Gambari, Amosa Isiaka and Yusuf, Mudasiru Olalere, Relative Effectiveness of Computer-Supported
Jigsaw II, STAD and TAI Cooperative Learning Strategies on Performance, Attitude, and Retention
of Secondary School Students in Physics, Journal of Peer Learning, 10, 2017, 76-94.
Available at:http://ro.uow.edu.au/ajpl/vol10/iss1/6

Research Online is the open access institutional repository for the University of Wollongong. For further information contact the UOW Library:
[email protected]
Journal of Peer Learning (2017) 10: 76–94

Relative Effectiveness of Computer-

Supported Jigsaw II, STAD and TAI
Cooperative Learning Strategies on
Performance, Attitude, and Retention of
Secondary School Students in Physics
Amosa Isiaka Gambari and Mudasiru Olalere Yusuf

ABSTRACT
This study investigated the relative effectiveness of computer-supported
cooperative learning strategies on the performance, attitudes, and retention
of secondary school students in physics. A purposive sampling technique was
used to select four senior secondary schools from Minna, Nigeria. The
students were allocated to one of four groups: Students Team Achievement
Division (STAD), Jigsaw II, Team-Assisted Individualisation (TAI), or
Individualised Computer Instruction (ICI). Computer-Assisted Learning
Package (CALP) on physics was used as the treatment instrument and the
Physics Achievement Test (PAT) and Physics Attitude Scale (PAS) were used as
outcome measures. Analysis of Covariance and the Scheffe post-hoc test were
used for data analysis. Some significant differences were found in the
performance and attitudes of the groups, though cooperative learning
strategies did not improve retention compared to ICI. These findings support
the integration of computer-supported cooperative instructional strategies in
secondary school classrooms.

INTRODUCTION
Physics is one of the science subjects taught at the senior secondary school
level of the Nigeria educational system. After the Junior Secondary School
class three (JSS III) examination, all qualified science students are
compulsorily enrolled to study physics at senior secondary school level. The
Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN, 2013) stated in its National Policy on
Education that physics can be taken as one of the “core” science subjects
(i.e., one of biology, chemistry, physics, or health science), as one vocational
elective, and as two non-vocational elective subjects.

Physics education is aimed at training students to acquire proper

understanding of basic principles as well as their applications. It is also
aimed at developing appropriate scientific skills and attitudes as a pre-
requisite for future scientific activities. To achieve these objectives, active
participation and collaborative learning activities become imperative and
these need functioning instructional media to make physics instruction
effective (Ogunleye, 2000; Onwioduokit, 2000)

© Journal of Peer Learning

Published by the University of Wollongong
ISSN 2200-2359 (online)
 Gambari and Yusuf 77

Olarinoye (2000) stressed that physics education is a pre-requisite for a

country like Nigeria, which is still struggling to join a world where science
and technology has become a way of life. According to him physics plays the
following roles, among others:

1) It generates openness to new ideas in a world of rapid changes;

2) it illustrates the cumulative character of scientific thought; and
3) it identifies and arrives at solutions to problems.

The significance of physics in all fields of science and technology has

therefore made it imperative to be included in the curriculum of senior
secondary school and to be offered to science oriented students. To build a
strong technological foundation, physics education needs to be given more
attention and priority in the Nigerian educational system. Unfortunately, in
spite of the importance of physics as a requirement for many specialised
science and engineering courses at universities, students’ performance at the
secondary school level in the subject is not encouraging.

The percentage of students that passed physics in senior school certificate

examination at credit level and above (A1–C6) was consistently less than 50%
for the past 10 years (2003–2012) in Nigeria. In spite of the importance of
physics to society and government’s efforts to improve science instruction in
schools, students’ performance is still poor and below average compared to
other sciences, such as biology, chemistry, and agriculture. This has become a
great concern to physics educators in Nigeria (West African Examination
Council, 2014).

The persistent poor performance in physics, if not checked, may jeopardise

the placement chances of students in tertiary institutions, not only in physics
education but also in other physics-related disciplines. This has serious
implications for national development, security, economy, and manpower for
a country with a vision of becoming one of the twenty leading nations in
science and technology by the year 2020 (Yar’adua, 2008).

Many researchers have attempted to find out the causes of students’ poor
performance in physics. Problems identified include: poor instructional
strategies (Adegoke, 2010), the abstract nature of physics concepts (Shehu,
2006), a lack of qualified teachers (Biodun, 2004; Besong & Obo, 2003), poor
infrastructure and inadequate laboratory facilities (Shawl, 2003), teacher-
centred instruction (Okeke, 2001), and poor availability and utilisation of
instructional materials (Gambari & Gana, 2005; Yusuf, 2005).

In order to achieve the objectives of physics education at the senior

secondary school (SSS) level, the guided-discovery method, student-activity-
based, and inquiry-oriented mode of teaching strategies were recommended
(FRN, 2013). Ivowi and Oladokun (2001) recommended an activity-oriented
approach to the teaching of physics that has emphasis on skill acquisition
and broad based principles and concepts. Students’achievement in physics
can be improved with the use of cooperative learning strategies.

Cooperative learning can provide an instructional arrangement within which

students can experience and practice many of the important skills inherent in
the physics curriculum. It can also provide a basic philosophical orientation
 Relative Effectiveness of Computer-Supported Learning Strategies: 78

from which individuals can work to improve life for themselves and those
around them (Millis & Cottell, 1998).

In a cooperative setting, students work together to attain group goals that

cannot be obtained by working individually or by working competitively. In
such classroom structure, students discuss subject matter, help each other
learn, and provide encouragement for members of the group (Johnson,
Johnson, & Holubec, 1994). Cooperative learning has been widely researched
and used in classrooms around the world since the 1970s. Research has
proven that this methodology has been very effective in encouraging student
interaction, developing positive attitudes toward better learning, and
producing positive effects on student achievement (Adesoji & Ibraheem,
2009; Lai & Wu, 2006; Mattingly, VanSickle, & Ronald, 2007; Moreno, 2009;
Simsek, 2013; Somsook & Coll, 2008). The most practiced strategies include
Students Team Achievement Division (STAD), Team Games Tournament
(TGT), Jigsaw II, Learning Together (LT), Group Investigation (GI), Team-
Assisted Individualisation (TAI), and many others. In this study, STAD, Jigsaw
II, and TAI were used.

In STAD strategy, students are assigned to a heterogeneous group that

consists of three members that are mixed in performance level and gender.
The computer presents a lesson and then students work within their teams to
make sure that all team members have mastered the lesson. Students take a
group quiz during which they reach consensus in decision making. They also
take individual quizzes on the material without helping one another.
Students’ scores are then summed to form team scores. Teams that meet
certain criteria earn certificates or other rewards (Slavin, 1986).

In Jigsaw II cooperative instructional strategy, students are assigned to three

member teams to work on academic materials. Initially all students are
assigned to study and understand the basic concepts of the materials. Later,
each student is given a section/topic on which to become an expert. Students
with the same section/topic meet in expert groups to discuss their topic,
after which they return to their original teams to teach what they have learnt
to their teammates. Then students take group and individual quizzes that
result in a team score based on the improvement score system (Slavin, 1986).

The Team-Assisted Instruction (TAI) strategy combines cooperative learning

with individualised instruction. In TAI, students are assigned into a three-
member heterogeneous group. Each team member is placed on a stand-alone
computer and learns the materials individually and proceeds at their own
pace. Teammates check each other’s work against answer sheets and help
each other with any problems. Finally, individual and group unit tests are
taken and scored by the teacher. Each week, teachers total the number of
units completed by all team members and give certificates or other team
rewards to the best team (Slavin, 1985; Slavin, Leavey, & Madden, 1986).

The use of a computer as a medium for cooperative learning is referred to as

computer-supported cooperative learning and it has been embraced in
developed nations (Hooper, 1992; Hooper, Temiyakan, & Williams, 1993;
Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 1996; Mevarech, 1993; Xin, 1996). Students using
computers for learning in groups have been found to perform better than
students using the same program individually (Yusuf & Afolabi, 2010). It is
 Gambari and Yusuf 79

also cost effective to have students learn in a small group with a single
computer rather than allocating a computer to each student.

Numerous studies have found that a computer-supported STAD cooperative

learning setting is effective at improving students’ achievements, encouraging
students’ interaction, and developing their positive attitudes towards learning
outcomes in various subjects. For instance, Pandian (2004), Taiwo (2008), and
Yusuf, Gambari, and Olumorin (2012) reported that students in a cooperative
computer-assisted instruction group outperformed their counterparts who
learned the same concepts using individualised computer instruction. Fajola
(2000) and Yusuf and Afolabi (2010) found that the performance of students
exposed to CAI either individually or cooperatively were better than their
counterparts exposed to the conventional classroom instruction, However,
Armstrong and Palmer (1998) and Glassman (1989) found no significant
difference in the achievement of students taught using STAD and those
taught in a conventional classroom.

Several studies revealed that Jigsaw II enhanced performance among students

in physics. For instance, Gambari (2010) and Berger and Hänze (2009)
reported that Jigsaw II was considerably more effective than an individualistic
instructional strategy. Keramati’s (2010) findings indicated that the
performance of students taught in a cooperative learning setting was
significantly better than those taught using a conventional teaching method.
However, Hänze and Berger, (2007), Mattingly et al. (2007), and Shaaban
(2006) found no significant difference in the achievement of students taught
physics using Jigsaw and those taught in a conventional classroom.

TAI was also found to be effective at enhancing mathematics achievement.

For example, Tarim and Akdeniz (2007) and Gupta and Pasrija (2011) found a
TAI cooperative learning strategy to be superior to more traditional methods
of teaching, both in terms of achievement and retention. In a study on
computer-supported TAI cooperative learning, Xin (1996) found an
improvement in students’ achievement and positive attitudes toward
mathematics. Similarly, Slavin and Karweit (1984) found that students in a
TAI group performed better in mathematics computation than the students
in a control group. However, Karper and Melnick (1993) found no significant
differences between students taught mathematics using TAI and those taught
with conventional methods.

Retention is the ability to reproduce a learnt concept when the need arises.
Appropriate instructional media may serve to increase retention
(Osemwinyen, 2009). However, Moreno (2009) found no difference in botany
students’ retention between the Jigsaw cooperative learning approach and a
traditional method. Majoka, Dad, and Mahmood (2010), Zakaria, Chin, and
Daud (2010), and Gupta and Pasrija (2011) revealed the encouraging effects
of co-operative learning (STAD) on students' achievement, retention, and
attitudes towards mathematics. Salend and Washin (1988) reported that TAI
increased students' on-task and cooperative behaviours and increased
students’ liking of their classmates when compared to working
independently. Similarly, Slavin (1984b) found that the TAI approach had
positive effects on mathematics achievement, behavioural ratings, and
students’ attitudes. Slavin (1984a) found that TAI improved social and
academic behaviour and increased mathematics achievement more so than
 Relative Effectiveness of Computer-Supported Learning Strategies: 80

traditional methods. However, Rosini and Jim (1997) reported no significant

difference in the achievement, retention, and attitudes of those taught home
economics using a cooperative learning strategy and those taught with
traditional methods.

According to Adegoke (2011), students perform better when they develop a

positive attitude towards a course. Cooperative learning helps people to
develop positive attitudes toward learning and to think independently inside
and outside of the classroom (Ajaja & Eravwoke, 2010). Studies have proven
that cooperative learning settings have been very effective in encouraging
student interaction and developing positive attitudes towards learning (Artut
& Tarim, 2007; Gomleksiz, 2007; Lai & Wu, 2006; Moreno, 2009). Zakaria,
Solfitri, Daud, and Abidin (2013) revealed that the percentage of students
who prefer cooperative learning is higher than the percentage of students
who do not like cooperative learning. However, Arra, D’Antonio, and
D’Antonio (2011) reported that some students preferred not to work in
groups, meaning that cooperative learning is not for everyone.

Research on cooperative learning strategies in Nigeria is scant. Furthermore,

existing studies on cooperative learning are limited to students’ academic
achievement. Empirical evidence for the effect of cooperative learning
strategies on student retention and attitudes towards the course before and
after the experiment appears to be limited. Therefore, this study examines
the effects of computer-supported cooperative learning strategies (STAD,
Jigsaw II, and TAI) on Nigerian senior secondary students’ achievement,
attitudes, and retention in physics.

RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
The following null hypotheses were tested in the study.

1) There are no significant differences in the post-test performance of

students taught physics using computer-supported STAD, Jigsaw II,
and TAI cooperative settings.
2) There are no significant differences in the delayed post-test
performance of students taught physics using computer-supported
STAD, Jigsaw II, and TAI cooperative settings.
3) There are no significant differences in the post-test attitudes of
students taught physics using computer-supported STAD, Jigsaw II,
and TAI cooperative settings.

METHODOLOGY
The design is a quasi-experimental study using a non-randomised, non-
equivalent, pre-test, post-test, control group design. The participants were
167 second year physics students from four intact classes from four different
senior secondary schools in Minna, Niger State, Nigeria. The schools were
purposively sampled based on five criteria: (i) equivalence (laboratories,
facilities, and manpower), (ii) school ownership (public schools), (iii) gender
composition (mixed schools), (iv) ICT facilities (computer laboratories under
the SchoolNet program), and (v) candidates’ enrolment (Senior Secondary
School Certificate in Education in physics for a minimum of ten years). The
schools were randomly assigned to experimental groups I, II and III
(computer-supported Jigsaw II, STAD, & TAI) and control (Individualized
Computer Instruction, ICI) groups using a simple random sampling
 Gambari and Yusuf 81

technique. The experimental group I (n = 46) was taught using a computer-

supported STAD cooperative learning strategy; the experimental group II (n =
42) was taught through a computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative learning
strategy; and the experimental group III (n = 41) was exposed to a computer-
supported TAI cooperative learning strategy. The control group (n = 38) was
taught using ICI over six weeks. The data was collected through the Physics
Achievement Test (PAT) and the Physics Attitude Scale (PAS). CALP (Computer
Assisted Learning Package) was used as a treatment instrument.

Instruments
(i) Physics Achievement Test (PAT) consists of 100 multiple-choice questions,
adopted from a past examination of the West African Examination Council
(WAEC, 2008) and the National Examination Council (NECO, 2007). The
questions in the test were based on the content of the Computer Assisted
Learning Package (CALP). Each of the stems of the PAT had five options (A–E)
as possible answers to the question, and each question was worth one point.
The instrument (PAT) was administered to the experimental and control
groups as pre-test, post-test, and delayed post-test after it had been
reshuffled. Test items were validated by experts before the test was
administered to 40 randomly selected Senior Secondary class II (SS II)
students who were not involved in the study. A reliability coefficient of 0.90
was obtained using Kuder Richardson (KR20).

(ii) Physics Attitude Scale (PAS) was developed by the researchers to measure
the students’ attitudes towards physics before and after exposure to
computer-supported STAD, Jigsaw II, or TAI cooperative learning strategies.
Section A of the PAS focused on demographic information of physics
students while section B focused on students’ attitudes towards the physics
subject. This section contained a 20 item four-point response mode of
Strongly Agree (coded 4), Agree (coded 3), Disagree (coded 2) and Strongly
Disagree (coded 1). The initial draft of 25 items of PAS was reviewed by
experts. The feedback obtained from this first administration was used to
revise the final instrument. It was also administered to students drawn from
a school outside the sampled schools to measure its reliability. A reliability
coefficient of 0.86 was obtained using Kuder Richardson (KR20). A total of
129 copies of the questionnaire were distributed to physics students before
and after the commencement of the study and a 100% return rate was
achieved and used for data analysis.

(iii) Computer Assisted Learning Package (CALP) was the treatment

instrument, used at two different instructional settings (cooperative and
individualised). The CALP was developed by the researchers and a
programmer using “Macromedia Dreamweaver 8” as the overall platform.
Other computer programs and applications that were also utilised during the
development process were Microsoft Word, Macromedia Fireworks 8, and
Macromedia Flash 8. Macromedia Fireworks was used for specific texts,
graphics, and buttons, while Macromedia Flash was used for simulation. The
package was face and content validated by computer programmers and
educational technology experts, subject content (physics) specialists, and by
40 sampled students from a school within the population who did not
partake in the study. The package contained two topics that were subdivided
into sixteen lessons. The main menu of the package consisted of
introduction, student registration, list of lessons (as in lesson 1, 2, 3, 4, …
 Relative Effectiveness of Computer-Supported Learning Strategies: 82

16), and exit. It adopted the drill and practice modes of Computer Assisted
Instruction (CAI).

Experimental procedure
In collecting the data for this research, the objectives and the modalities of
the study were specified and an operational guide was produced before the
commencement of the treatment. Physics teachers in the experimental group
were trained in the use of computer-assisted learning packages and
cooperative learning strategies while the teacher in the control group was
trained on how to coordinate individualised computer instruction using the
CALP. The treatment period for all groups covered six weeks (2 hr 40 min per
week). The students in the experimental groups were heterogeneously divided
into groups with three members each.

At the beginning of the study, PAT and PAS were administered to students in
the sampled schools as a pre-test. The CALP was installed on standalone
computer systems in all the selected schools. The physics content was
presented via the computer and the students interacted and responded to the
computer prompts. The computer presented information and displayed
animations to the students on each of the units after which the students
attempted some multiple-choice questions. The students could only proceed
in a lesson on the condition that the questions were satisfactorily answered.
The students had to have at least 100% mastery of one topic before moving
on to the next. If after three attempts they did not get the answer correctly,
the package would immediately log them out and the instructor had to be
called before they could continue through another log-in. During the study,
the experimental groups were exposed to the use of computer-assisted
cooperative learning strategies (Jigsaw II, STAD, & TAI) as treatment, while
students in the control group were individually exposed to the ICI package.
Immediately after the treatment, PAT and PAS were administered as post-test,
and after four weeks, PAT was re-administered as a delayed post-test.

Procedures for each strategy

(i) The computer-supported STAD cooperative learning strategy: In this
method, students were assigned to a three-member heterogeneous group.
Each member was assigned different responsibilities (e.g., group leader, time-
keeper, scribe, and quiet captain, who controlled the discussion). The groups
were exposed to a CALP where members completed the reading of the
materials and performed the tasks together. To ascertain that there was no
free rider, students were given an individual task that was marked and
recorded against group scores. After the completion of a lesson, students
took a quiz as a team and reached consensus with respect to the correct
answers after which one answer sheet was submitted by the team for which
all team members received the same “team score.” The scoring was done
based on an individual quiz score and a team quiz score, which counted
equally towards the student’s final course grade. High scoring teams were
recognised and rewarded in the class. The best team was recognised by (i)
putting their names on the notice board and (ii) clapping for them in the
class, among other methods. They were also rewarded with a “Merit Award
Certificate” and stationery, among other gifts items. A group processing form
was completed after each lesson to determine the group’s behaviour and to
correct any irregularity within the teammates.
 Gambari and Yusuf 83

(ii) The computer-supported Jigsaw II cooperative learning strategy: In this

strategy, students were divided into small heterogeneous groups called home
groups, with three members in each group. Each member was assigned
different responsibilities. Initially all students were assigned to study and
understand the basic concepts of the materials. After this process, the
researcher divided the content (the tasks) of the lesson into three and
assigned it to each member in the home group. The students met in their
home groups and studied the assigned tasks using a CALP. Each member in
the home group attempted to learn the assigned task as an expert by
referring to the computer package and the available resources. After
completing the learning task in the home group, each member moved into the
expert group (Jigsaw II group) consisting of members from the other home
groups who had been assigned the same portion of the material (task). In the
Jigsaw II group (expert group), the participants discussed and shared their
particular materials with other members of the group and discussed how to
teach it to their members in the home group. The team members then
returned to their home groups where they taught what they learned from the
Jigsaw group to the other members of their groups. In case of any difficulty
and misconception, the expert group conducted a second meeting to discuss
and clarify any doubts. After the second round of discussion, the experts
returned to their home groups to re-teach the members and reach a
consensus. The group processing and scoring method was the same as the
STAD condition. High scoring teams were recognised and rewarded in the
class.

(iii) The computer-supported TAI cooperative learning strategy: This was

originally designed for teaching mathematics, but in this study it was
adopted for physics since both have many things in common. In this strategy,
students were divided into three member heterogeneous groups. Each
student was assigned a stand-alone computer on an individual basis and then
proceeded at his/her own pace. In other words, team members studied the
same concept independently but moved around to seek assistance from team
members, check each other’s work on worksheets, and help one another to
understand the concepts and solve the problems. An individual quiz was
given to team members but the final unit test was taken without help from
group members and scored by the researchers. The scores obtained by
individual and group tests were summed and the average found. Certificates
or other team rewards were given to the best team.

(iv) Individualised Computer Instruction method: This was used for the control
group. In this method, students were taught the physics concepts using the
CALP only. The computer presented the instruction on a human-to-computer
basis. Students proceeded with the physics content and studied at their own
rate without any assistance from their colleagues. Students answered the PAT
test at the pre-test and post-test individually.
 Relative Effectiveness of Computer-Supported Learning Strategies: 84

RESULTS
To test the hypotheses, the data were analysed using Analysis of Covariance
(ANCOVA) and Scheffe’s test using Statistical Package for Social Sciences
(SPSS) version 11 at 0.05 alpha level. The results are presented based on the
research hypotheses.

Null Hypothesis One

Null hypothesis one can be stated as follows: There is no significant
difference in the post-test performance of secondary school students taught
physics using computer-supported STAD, Jigsaw II, and TAI in cooperative
settings and those taught using individualised computer instruction.

To determine whether there were significant differences in the post-test

mean scores of the computer supported STAD, Jigsaw II, TAI, and ICI groups,
data were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). There was a
significant main effect of learning strategy on post-test performance,
F (3, 162) = 8.947, p < 0.001. This indicates that the method of instruction
produced a significant effect on the post-test performance scores of students
when the covariate effect (pre-test) was controlled. The result indicates that
the treatment, using STAD, Jigsaw II, TAI, and ICI accounted for the
difference in the post-test performance scores of the students. Based on the
established significant difference in the post-test performance scores of the
groups, Scheffe’s test was used for post-hoc analysis to determine the
direction of the difference. The results of this post-hoc analysis are as shown
in Table 1.

The results in Table 1 indicate that there was no significant difference in the
post-test mean scores of students exposed to STAD (𝑋̅ = 65.43) and those
exposed to Jigsaw II (𝑋̅ = 68.38). A significant difference was not established
in the post-test mean scores of students exposed to TAI (𝑋̅ = 62.73) and those
exposed to ICI (𝑋̅ = 61.39). A significant difference was established between
Jigsaw II (X = 68.38) and TAI (𝑋̅ = 62.73) and between Jigsaw II (𝑋̅ = 68.38) and
ICI (𝑋̅ = 61.39) in favour of Jigsaw II. Student performance was also compared
based on the mean gain scores between the pre-test and post-test for each
group. The results of this comparison are shown in Table 2 and are
graphically illustrated in Figure 1.

Table 1
Scheffe’s post-hoc analyses of the groups’ mean post-test performance scores

Groups Mean Group I Group II Group III Group IV

Scores (STAD) (Jigsaw II) (TAI) (ICI)
Group I (STAD) 65.43 0.324 0.408 0.1054
Group II (Jigsaw II) 68.38 0.324 *0.008 *0.001
Group III (TAI) 62.73 0.408 *0.008 0.885
Group IV (ICI) 61.39 0.105 *0.001 0.885
*The mean difference is significant at 0.05 level.
 Gambari and Yusuf 85

Table 2
Mean Gain Scores of students’ performance in STAD, Jigsaw II, TAI, and ICI
groups

Group Pre-test Post-test Mean Gain Score

STAD 20.72 65.43 44.71
Jigsaw II 20.07 68.38 48.31
TAI 21.05 62.73 41.68
ICI 19.82 61.39 41.57

Table 2 shows that Jigsaw II had the highest mean gain score of 48.31,
followed by STAD with a mean gain score of 44.71, TAI with a mean gain
score of 41.67, and ICI with a mean gain score of 41.57. This indicates that all
the groups benefited from the treatment, with Jigsaw II having the best
performance.

80
70
60
50
Scores (%)

40
30
20
10
0
STAD Jigsaw II TAI ICI
Instructional Strategies

Pre-test Post-test Mean Gain Score

Figure 1. Graphical illustration of students’ performance using STAD, Jigsaw

II, TAI, and ICI.

Null Hypothesis Two

Null hypothesis two can be stated as follows: There is no significant
difference in the delayed post-test performance of students taught physics
using computer-supported STAD, Jigsaw II, and TAI in cooperative settings
and those taught using individualised computer instruction.

To determine whether there were significant differences in the delayed post-

test mean scores of the computer supported STAD, Jigsaw II, and TAI groups,
and the ICI control group, data were analysed using an analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA). There was a significant main effect of learning strategy on
delayed post-test performance, F (3, 162) = 7.689, p < 0.001. This indicates
that the method of instruction produced a significant effect on the delayed
 Relative Effectiveness of Computer-Supported Learning Strategies: 86

post-test scores of students when the covariate effect (pre-test) was

controlled. The result indicates that the treatment, using STAD, Jigsaw II, TAI,
and ICI accounted for the difference in the delayed post-test scores of the
students. Based on the established significant difference in the delayed post-
test scores of the groups, Scheffe’s test was used for post-hoc analysis. The
results of this post-hoc analysis are shown in Table 3.

The results shown in Table 3 indicate that there was no significant difference
in the delayed post-test mean scores of students exposed to STAD (𝑋̅ = 60.43)
and those exposed to Jigsaw II (𝑋̅ = 63.02). There was a significant difference
in the delayed post-test mean scores of students exposed to Jigsaw II (𝑋̅ =
63.02) and those exposed to TAI (𝑋̅ = 57.88) in favour of the Jigsaw II group.
A significant difference was not established in the delayed post-test mean
scores of students exposed to TAI (𝑋̅ = 57.88) and those exposed to ICI (𝑋̅ =
56.66). A significant difference was established between Jigsaw II (𝑋̅ = 63.02)
and ICI (𝑋̅ = 56.66) in favour of Jigsaw II.

Table 3
Scheffe’s post-hoc results of students’ mean delayed post-test scores of STAD,
Jigsaw II, TAI, and ICI groups
Groups Mean Group I Group II Group III Group IV
Scores (STAD) (Jigsaw II) (TAI) (ICI)
Group I (STAD) 60.43 0.425 0.442 0.134
Group II (Jigsaw II) 63.02 0.425 *0.017 *0.002
Group III (TAI) 57.88 0.442 *0.017 0.905
Group IV (ICI) 56.66 0.134 *0.002 0.905
* The mean difference is significant at 0.05 level

In order to examine retention, the performance of students in the four

groups was further compared based on the mean loss scores between the
post-test and delayed post-test for each group. The results are shown in
Table 4 and graphically illustrated in Figure 2.

Table 4 shows a decrease in delayed post-test scores of the four groups as

compared to post-test scores. Jigsaw II had the highest decrease in the form
of a mean loss score of 5.36, followed by STAD with a mean loss score of
5.00, TAI with a mean loss score of 4.85, and ICI with a mean loss score of
4.73. This indicates that all the groups still largely retained the physics
concepts, but cooperative groups did not outperform the ICI group on
retention.

Table 4
Mean loss scores between post-test and delayed post-test for STAD, Jigsaw II,
TAI and ICI groups
Group Post-test Retention-test Mean Loss Score
STAD 65.43 60.43 5.00
Jigsaw II 68.38 63.02 5.36
TAI 62.73 57.88 4.85
ICI 61.39 56.66 4.73
 Gambari and Yusuf 87

80
70
60
50
Scores (%)

40
30
20
10
0
STAD Jigsaw II TAI ICI
Instructional Strategies

Post-test Retention Test Mean Loss Scores

Figure 2. Graphical illustration of mean loss scores between post-test and

delayed post-test for STAD, Jigsaw II, TAI, and ICI groups.

Null Hypothesis Three

Null hypothesis three can be stated as follows: There is no significant
difference in the post-test attitudes of secondary school students taught
physics using computer-supported STAD, Jigsaw II, and TAI in cooperative
settings and those taught using individualised computer instruction.

To determine whether there were significant differences in the mean attitude

scores of the computer supported STAD, Jigsaw II, TAI groups, and the ICI
control group, data were analysed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA).
There was a significant main effect of learning strategy on students’ attitude,
F (3, 162) = 12.861, p < 0.001. This indicates that the method of instruction
produced a significant effect on the attitude scores of students when the
covariate effect (pre-test) was controlled. This result indicates that the
treatment, using STAD, Jigsaw II, TAI, and ICI accounted for the difference in
the attitude of students. Based on the established significant difference in the
attitude scores of the groups, Scheffe’s test was used for post-hoc analysis.
The results of this post-hoc analysis are shown in Table 5.

As shown in Table 5, there was no significant difference in the mean attitude

scores of students exposed to STAD (𝑋̅ = 58.43) and those exposed to Jigsaw
II (𝑋̅ = 60.12). There was also no significant difference in the mean attitude
scores of students exposed to Jigsaw II (𝑋̅= 60.176) and those exposed to TAI
(𝑋̅ = 63.48). A significant difference was established in the mean attitude
scores of students exposed to TAI (𝑋̅ = 63.45) and those exposed to ICI (𝑋̅ =
51.42) in favour of the TAI group. A significant difference was also
established between STAD (𝑋̅ = 58.43) and ICI (𝑋̅ = 51.42) and between Jigsaw
II (𝑋̅ = 60.12) and ICI (𝑋̅ = 51.42) in favour of STAD and Jigsaw II respectively.

The attitude of students in the four groups was further compared based on
the mean gain scores between the pre- and post-attitude test for each group.
 Relative Effectiveness of Computer-Supported Learning Strategies: 88

The results of this comparison are shown in Table 6 and graphically

illustrated in Figure 3.

Table 5
Scheffe’s post-hoc results of students’ mean post-test attitude scores of STAD,
Jigsaw II and ICI groups

Groups Mean Group I Group II Group III Group IV

Scores (STAD) (Jigsaw II) (TAI) (ICI)
Group I (STAD) 58.43 0.868 0.119 *0.014
Group II (Jigsaw II) 60.18 0.868 0.491 *0.001
Group III (TAI) 63.48 0.119 0.491 *0.000
Group IV (ICI) 51.42 *0.014 *0.001 *0.000
*The mean difference is significant at 0.05 level

Table 6 shows that the groups had improved performance in post-attitude

test. Jigsaw II had the highest mean gain score of 27.84, follow by STAD with
a mean gain score of 28.13, TAI with a mean gain score of 29.93, and ICI with
a mean gain score of 16.24. This indicates that students in cooperative
learning groups developed more positive attitudes towards physics after the
treatment than those in the control group.

Table 6
Mean attitude gain scores of students in STAD, Jigsaw II, TAI and ICI groups

Group Pre-test Post-test Mean Gain Score

STAD 30.59 58.43 27.84
Jigsaw II 32.05 60.18 28.13
TAI 33.55 63.48 29.93
ICI 35.18 51.42 16.24

70

60

50
Scores (%)

40

30

20

10

0
STAD Jigsaw II TAI ICI
Instructional Strategies

Pretest Posttest Mean Gain Score

Figure 3. Graphical illustration of students’ mean attitude gain scores of

STAD, Jigsaw II, TAI, and ICI groups.
 Gambari and Yusuf 89

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS
The results of hypothesis one revealed a significant difference between the
performance of students in Jigsaw II and TAI cooperative learning strategies
in favour of Jigsaw II. It also revealed a significant difference between the
performance of students in Jigsaw II cooperative learning strategy and ICI in
favour of Jigsaw II. The findings on students’ performance in the Jigsaw II
group compared to those taught using ICI are in line with the earlier findings
of Fajola (2000) and Keramati (2010) who found that students taught biology
and physics respectively using cooperative learning strategies performed
better than those taught with conventional teaching methods. This also
agrees with the findings of Yusuf and Afolabi (2010) in biology who reported
that students taught using a computer-assisted cooperative learning strategy
performed better than those taught using computer-assisted instruction in
individualised settings. Furthermore, the findings are consistent with the
findings of Lai and Wu (2006) in nursing education, Moreno (2009) in
botany, and Doymus (2008) in chemistry who found that Jigsaw II was more
effective than other cooperative instructional strategies. However, the finding
that Jigsaw II outperformed TAI contradicts Tarim and Akdeniz’s (2007)
study where TAI performed better than STAD.

The difference between Jigsaw II from other cooperative learning strategies

may stem from the fact that Jigsaw II is a task structured (task specialisation)
and incentive structured (group rewards for individual learning, group reward
for group product, and individual rewards) cooperative strategy. It produces
a positive outcome when properly implemented. We observed that the Jigsaw
II instructional strategy provides no room for free riders; each member of the
group must do all or most of the work (Dingel, Wei, & Huq, 2013).

In relation to retention, we found that cooperative learning strategies did not

increase retention compared to ICI. Our findings contrast with the findings of
Salend and Washin (1988) and Slavin (1984a, 1984b) who found that the TAI
approach had positive effects on mathematics achievement, behavioural
ratings, and student attitudes. However, Rosini and Jim (1997) reported no
significant difference in the achievement, retention, and attitude of those
taught home economics using a cooperative learning strategy and those
taught with a traditional method. Similarly, Moreno (2009) found no
difference in botany students’ retention between the Jigsaw cooperative
learning approach and a traditional method.

In relation to hypothesis three, we found significant differences in the

students’ attitude between cooperative learning strategies (STAD, Jigsaw II,
and TAI) and ICI in favour of cooperative learning strategies. The most
positive change in attitude toward physics was observed in the TAI group,
followed by the Jigsaw II and STAD groups. This result aligns with the
findings of Artut and Tarim (2007), Gomleksiz (2007), Lai and Wu (2006),
Moreno (2009), and Zakaria et al. (2013) who found that students exposed to
cooperative learning had more positive attitudes than those taught with
traditional methods. However, Arra et al. (2011) reported that some students
preferred not to work in groups, meaning that some have negative attitudes
towards cooperative learning.

Our findings have strong implications for teaching and learning physics in
secondary schools in Nigeria using computer-supported cooperative learning
 Relative Effectiveness of Computer-Supported Learning Strategies: 90

strategies. Our results suggest that computer assisted instruction is better in

cooperative learning settings than in an individualised setting. Furthermore,
our results suggest that exposing students to a computer supported
cooperative learning strategy may improve students’ performance in physics
as well as their attitude toward the subject.

CONCLUSION
This study has delved into three types of computer-supported cooperative
learning strategies (STAD, Jigsaw II, and TAI) as a way to overcome poor
performance in physics at the senior secondary school level in Nigeria. All
three computer-supported cooperative learning strategies had a positive
effect on student attitudes towards physics compared to individualised
computer instruction (ICI). However, Jigsaw II was the only computer-
supported cooperative learning strategy to have a positive effect on student
performance compared to ICI. Furthermore, cooperative learning strategies
did not increase retention compared to ICI.

RECOMMENDATIONS
In this digital age, schools and educators are expected to explore
technologically enhanced strategies to improve students’ performance. Our
findings provide some support for the adoption of computer-supported
cooperative instructional strategies so as to promote social interaction, active
learning, discovery learning, motivation, learning by doing, and learning by
experience among students. However, the effective use of computer-
supported cooperative learning strategies also depends on the provision of
appropriate training for physics teachers through seminars, workshops, and
conferences.

REFERENCES
Adegoke, B. A. (2010). Integrating animations, narrations and textual
materials for Improving students’ learning outcomes in senior secondary
school physics. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology,
8(2), 725–748.
Adegoke, B. A. (2011). Effect of multimedia instruction on senior secondary
school students’ achievement in physics. European Journal of Educational
Studies, 3(3), 537–541.
Adesoji, F. A., & Ibraheem, T. L. (2009). Effects of student teams-achievement
divisions strategy and mathematics knowledge on learning outcomes in
chemical kinetics. Journal of International Social Research, 1(6), 15–25.
Ajaja, O. P., & Eravwoke, O. U. (2010). Effects of cooperative learning strategy
on junior secondary school students achievement in integrated science.
Electronic Journal of Science Education, 14(1). Retrieved from
http://ejse.southwestern.edu
Armstrong, S., & Palmer, J. (1998). Student teams achievement division (STAD)
in a twelfth grade classroom: Effect on student achievement and attitude.
Journal of Social Studies Research, 22(1), 3–6.
Arra, C. T., D’Antonio, M. D., & D’Antonio Jr., M. (2011). Students’ preferences
for cooperative learning instructional approaches: Considerations for
college teachers. Journal of Research in Education, 21, 114–126.
Artut, P. D., & Tarim, K. (2007). The effectiveness of Jigsaw II on prospective
elementary school teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,
35(2), 129-141. doi:10.1080/13598660701268551
 Gambari and Yusuf 91

Berger, R., & Hänze, M. (2009). Comparison of two small group learning
methods in 12th grade physics classes focusing on intrinsic motivation
and academic performance. International Journal of Science Education, 31,
1511–1527. doi:10.1080/09500690802116289
Besong, F. F., & Obo, U. B. (2003). Students’ performance in science,
technology and mathematics in the era of globalization. Education Today,
3(1) 37–49.
Biodun, K. (2004). A comparative study of the effect of teacher's qualification
and teaching methods on students' achievement in chemistry (Unpublished
PhD Thesis). University of Calabar, Calabar, Nigeria.
Dingel, M. J., Wei, W., & Huq, A. (2013). Cooperative learning and peer
evaluation: The effect of free riders on team performance and the
relationship between course performance and peer evaluation. Journal of
the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1), 45–56.
Doymus, K. (2008). Teaching chemical equilibrium with the Jigsaw technique.
Research in Science Education, 38(2), 249–260.
Fajola, O. O. (2000). Effect of three modes of computer based instructional
strategies on students’ learning outcomes in biology (Unpublished Ph.D
Thesis). University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria.
Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) (2013). National policy on education. Lagos,
Nigeria: Federal Government Press.
Gambari, I. A. (2010). Effect of computer-supported cooperative learning
strategies on the performance of senior secondary students in physics, in
Minna, Nigeria (Unpublished PhD Thesis). University of Ilorin, Ilorin,
Nigeria.
Gambari, A. I., & Gana, E. S. (2005). The role of instructional media in
enhancing teaching and learning of engineering education and training. In
Proceedings of the 6th Annual Engineering Conference of School of
Engineering & Engineering Technology, Federal University of Technology
(FUT), Minna (pp. 118–142). Minna, Nigeria: FUT.
Glassman, P. (1989). A study of cooperative learning in mathematics, writing
and reading in the intermediate grades: A focus upon achievement,
attitudes, and self-esteem by gender, race, and ability group. (Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation). Hofstra University, New York, NY.
Gomleksiz, M. N. (2007). Effectiveness of cooperative learning (Jigsaw II)
method in teaching English as foreign language to engineering students
(Case of Firat University, Turkey). European Journal of Engineering
Education, 32(5), 613–625.
Gupta, M., & Pasrija, P. (2011). Cooperative learning versus traditional
learning: Effect on achievement in mathematics. New Frontiers in
Education, 44(4), 427–436.
Hänze, M., & Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivation effects,
students’ characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative
learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and
Instruction, 17(1), 29–41. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.11.004
Hooper, S. (1992). Effects of peer interaction during computer-based
mathematics instruction. Journal of Educational Research, 85(3), 180–89.
Hooper, S., Temiyakarn, C., & Williams, M. D. (1993). The effects of
cooperative learning and learner control on high- and average-ability
students. Journal of Educational Technology Research and Development,
 Relative Effectiveness of Computer-Supported Learning Strategies: 92

41(2), 5–18. doi:10.1007/BF02297309

Ivowi, U. M. O., & Olodokun, J. S. O. (2001). The status of women in physics in
Nigeria. In O. O. Busari (Ed.), Women in science, technology and
mathematics education in Nigeria (pp. 338–343). Ibadan, Nigeria:
Heinemann Educational.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1994). Cooperative Learning in
the Classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development.
Johnson, R. T., Johnson, D. W., & Stanne, M. B. (1996). Comparison of
computer-assisted cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning.
American Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 382–392.
Karper, J., & Melnick, S. A. (1993). The effectiveness of team accelerated
instruction on high achievers in mathematics. Journal of Instruction
Psychology, 20(1), 49-54.
Keramati, M. (2010). Effect of cooperative learning on academic achievement
of physics course. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science
Teaching, 29(2), 155–173.
Lai, C. Y., & Wu, C. C. (2006). Using handhelds in a jigsaw cooperative
learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 22(4), 284–
297. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2006.00176.x
Majoka, M. I., Dad, M. H., & Mahmood, T. (2010). Student team achievement
division (STAD) as an active learning strategy: Empirical evidence from
mathematics classroom. Journal of Education and Sociology, 4, 16–20.
Mattingly, R. M., VanSickle, R. L., & Ronald, L. (2007). Cooperative learning and
achievement in social studies: Jigsaw II (US Department of Education
Report). Retrieved from ERIC Database (ED348267).
Mevarech, Z. R. (1993). Who benefits from cooperative computer-assisted
Instruction? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 9, 451-64.
Millis, B. J., & Cottell, Jr., P. G. (1998). Cooperative learning for higher
education faculty. Phoenix, AZ: American Council on Education and Oryx
Press.
NECO (2007). Past questions and answers for June/July NECO examination
from 2000-2007. Lagos, Nigeria: Johnson Publishers.
Pandian, S. S. (2004). Cooperative learning in biology: The effect of computers.
Namsai, Indian: Department of Education, Arunachi University.
Moreno, R. (2009). Constructing knowledge with an agent-based instructional
program: A comparison of cooperative and individual meaning making.
Learning and Instruction, 19(5), 433–444.
doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2009.02.018
Ogunleye, A. O. (2000). Towards the optimal utilization and management of
resources for the effective teaching and learning of physics in schools. In
Proceedings of of the 41st Annual Conference of Science Teachers
Association of Nigeria (STAN) (pp. 313–322). Abuja, Nigeria: STAN.
Okeke, E. A. C. (2001). Women in science, technology and mathematics
education in Nigeria. In Proceedings of the 42nd Annual Conference of the
Science Teachers Association of Nigeria (STAN) (pp. 3–11). Abuja, Nigeria:
STAN.
Olarinoye, R. D. (2000). Strategies for effective teaching of modern physics. In
Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Science Teachers
Association of Nigeria (STAN) (pp. 24–29). Abuja, Nigeria: STAN.
 Gambari and Yusuf 93

Onwioduokit, F. A. (2000). Enriching physics education in Nigeria to cope with

the challenges of the present millennium. In Proceedings of the 41st
Annual Conference of the Science Teachers Association of Nigeria (STAN)
(pp. 322 – 333). Abuja, Nigeria: STAN.
Osemwinyen, A. C. (2009). Effects of e-learning on retention and achievement
in secondary school mathematics in Abuja, Nigeria (Unpublished PhD
thesis). University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria.
Rosini, B. A., & Jim, F. (1997). The effect of cooperative learning methods on
achievement, retention, and attitudes of home economics students in
North Carolina. Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 13(2), 1–7.
Salend, S. J., & Washin, B. (1988). Team assisted individualization with
handicapped adjudicated youth. Exceptional Children, 55(2), 74–80.
doi:10.1177/001440298805500209
Shaaban, K. (2006). An initial study of the effects of cooperative learning on
reading comprehension, vocabulary acquisition, and motivation to read.
Reading Psychology, 27(5), 377–403. doi:10.1080/02702710600846613
Shawl, A. (2003). An adoption of problem based teaching and problem-based
learning to improve the teaching of radioactivity. Chinese Journal of
Elementary Science, 3(1), 14–18.
Shehu, A. T. (2006). Community resources materials for teaching physics. In
Y. Aiyesimi, I. N. Mogbo, G. A. Ololi (Eds.), Challenges in science and
technological advancement and economic reforms: Proceedings of 2nd
Annual School of Science & Science Education Conference, Federal
University of Technology (FUT), Minna (pp. 326–331). Minna, Nigeria: FUT.
Simsek, U. (2013). Effects of cooperative learning methods on social studies
undergraduate students’ achievement in political science. Energy
Education Science and Technology Part B: Social and Educational Studies,
5(1), 619–632.
Slavin, R. E. (1984a). Combining cooperative learning and individualized
instruction: Effect on student mathematics achievement, attitude and
behaviours. Elementary School Journal, 84(4), 409–422.
Slavin, R. E. (1984b). Students motivating students to excel: Cooperative
incentives, cooperative tasks, and student achievement. The Elementary
School Journal, 85(1), 53–63.
Slavin, R. E. (1985). Team assisted individualization: Combining cooperative
learning and individualized instruction in mathematics. In R. E. Slavin, S.
Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, and R. Schmuck (Eds.),
Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 177–210). New York, NY:
Springer.
Slavin, R. E. (1986). Using student team learning (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD:
Johns Hopkins University.
Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. (1984). Mastery learning and student teams: A
factorial experiment in urban general mathematics classes. American
Educational Research Journal, 21(4), 725–736.
doi:10.302/00028312021004725
Slavin, R. E., Leavey, M. B., &. Madden, N. A. (1986). Team accelerated
instruction mathematics. Watertown, MA: Mastery Education Corporation.
Somsook, E., & Coll, R. K. (2008). Thai undergraduate chemistry practical
learning experiences using the Jigsaw II method. Journal of Science and
Mathematics Education in Southeast Asia, 31(2), 178–200.
 Relative Effectiveness of Computer-Supported Learning Strategies: 94

Taiwo, O. A. (2008). Relative effectiveness of ICI and CCI packages on the

performance of students in senior secondary school mathematics in Minna
(Unpublished B.Tech. Project). Department Science Education, Federal
University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria.
Tarim, K., & Akdeniz, F. (2007). The effects of cooperative learning on
Turkish elementary students' mathematics achievement and attitude
towards mathematics using TAI and STAD methods. Educational Studies
in Mathematics, 6(1), 77-91. doi:10.1007/s10649-007-9088-y.
West African Examination Council (WAEC) (2008). Past questions and answers
for May/June WAEC examination from 1988-2008. Lagos, Nigeria: Johnson
Publishers.
West African Examination Council (WAEC) (2014). Chief examiner’s report.
Lagos, Nigeria: Author.
Xin, F. (1996). The effects of computer-assisted cooperative learning in
mathematics in integrated classrooms for students with and without
disabilities. Rowan College of New Jersey, Special Education Department.
Retrieved from ERIC Database (ED412696).
Yar’adua, U. M. (2008). The presidential speech. Retrieved January 9, 2009,
from http://www.centralbank.org.
Yusuf, M. O. (2005). Integrating information and communication technologies
(ICTs) in Nigerian tertiary education. The African Symposium, 5(2), 42-50.
Yusuf, M. O., & Afolabi, A. O. (2010). Effects of computer assisted instruction
(CAI) on secondary school students’ performance in biology. The Turkish
Online Journal of Educational Technology, 9(1), 62–69.
Yusuf, M. O., Gambari, A. I., & Olumorin, C. O. (2012). Effectiveness of
computer-supported cooperative learning strategies in learning physics.
International Journal of Social Sciences and Education, 2(2), 94–109.
Zakaria, E., Chin, L. C., & Daud, M. Y. (2010). The effects of cooperative
learning on students’ mathematics achievement and attitude towards
mathematics. Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 272–275.
Zakaria, E., Solfitri, T., Daud, Y., & Abidin, Z. Z. (2013). Effect of cooperative
learning on secondary school students’ mathematics achievement.
Creative Education, 4(2), 98–100. doi:10.4236/ce.2013.42014.