IMPROVING ACHIEVEMENT AND ATTITUDE THROUGH

COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN MATH CLASS OF

GRADE 8 OF LAGASIT
NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
S.Y. 2020-2021

An Action Research presented to:

Dr. LINDA P. TELLO

Institute of Graduate and Professional Studies

Lyceum-Northwestern University

Dagupan City

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Course:

DIVERSITY OF LEARNERS WITH ACTION RESEARCH

By:

ROMMEL B. OBILLO
Master in Education Mathematics

Academic Year 2020-2021

I. Context and Rationale

In this action research study of my classroom of eight grade mathematics, I

investigated the use of cooperative learning groups and whether working in groups changed

students’ individual achievement and students’ attitudes toward mathematics. I used my

eight grade class of 13 students along with two different types of group formations: teacher-

formed groups and student formed groups. I discovered that the type of group formation can

have an impact on the attitudes of students and how well they work together. I also

discovered that there was no real change in students’ achievement, but the longer the group

worked together the better they performed. As a result of this research, I plan to continue to

find ways to incorporate cooperative group activities but keep groups together for a longer

period of time.

In the public school setting, many classrooms have students with a wide range of

abilities, but all are working toward the same goal. Students learn and understand

mathematical concepts in a variety of different ways. Teachers have the sometimes-

difficult task of trying to identify which strategy works best for each individual student. I

believe that in many instances, students can learn better from other students. Working

cooperatively is an important life skill that students can use outside the classroom to help

work effectively with others to solve any problem or task.

Throughout my years of teaching, I became frustrated with the long line of students

who were asking questions on homework problems. After my first summer of the Math in the

Middle program, I began to realize how much it helped me to be able to discuss with other

teachers the mathematical problems that my peers and I were trying to solve. I wanted to

help my own students realize that working together toward a common goal with other
students can be beneficial to all of them. Although the correct answer is important, I want my

students to also realize the importance of understanding the strategies and methods used to

solve a problem. My hope is that a student will not just agree that another student’s answer

is correct but ask, “How did you work the problem?” or “How did you get that answer?”

Exploring together can help them to realize that there are sometimes many different

methods that can be used to solve a problem.

In the early days of formal education, with the one-room schoolhouse, teachers relied

on students helping other students with their learning. As the population increased and

schools became larger, the schools also became more specific to age- and grade-

appropriate separation. This changed the way teachers worked in the classroom more

toward direct instruction where students worked individually. During the past several years,

many studies have been done focusing on topics similar to the early days of teaching and

using cooperative learning. The research provides readers with the following themes related

to cooperative learning: grouping students, students’ academic achievement, group reward

system, and students’ attitudes.

According to Oxford American Dictionary, cooperative learning can be defined as a

small group of students who are working together on a common learning task. Each student

plays an important role of helping one another achieve this common goal. Cooperative

learning begins with the formation of groups into teams of students. Whicker, Bol, and

Nunnery (1997) studied 31 high school juniors and seniors divided into two classes where

one class studied material cooperatively and the other class studied independently. They

used surveys of students and found that most students indicated that they liked working in

groups and getting help from other students. Cooperative groups consisted of five members

and included one student from the top fourth of the class, one student from the bottom fourth

of the class, and three students from the middle half of the class (Whicker et al., 1997).

Bernero (2000) studied 25 second grade Black and Hispanic students working in

cooperative groups. Bernero used surveys of teachers and students and found that students

felt more comfortable working in a cooperative group. Students were placed in pairs or

groups of three and used many manipulatives to work on problems. Gillies (2004) studied

the effects of cooperative learning on 223 ninth grade students in structured and
unstructured groups. Gillies found that students in structured groups were more willing to

work with others on assigned tasks and provide assistance to their peers than the students

in the unstructured groups. The students worked in three- or four-person mixed-gender and

mixed-achievement groups.

Anderson (2005) studied 420 junior and senior college students in a comparison of

cooperative learning and traditional lecture-based biochemistry curriculum. Anderson found

that students in the cooperative learning environment scored higher than their peers in

standardized testing of the curriculum and were more positive about their learning

experience. The cooperative learning classes were split into tutorial groups of five to six

students, each meeting in a small room for one hour per session. These classes met for the

same total number of hours per semester as did the traditional lecture-based classes. Each

tutorial group included a senior biochemistry major or first-year graduate student as an

educational assistant (Anderson, 2005). Finding similar results in a different college setting,

Yamarik (2007) studied a total of 116 students enrolled in intermediate macroeconomics

classes in the spring of 2002 and the fall of 2004. Using multivariate regression analysis, he

found that students taught by cooperative learning achieved greater academic performance

in the form of higher exam scores. Cooperative groups were established with three or four

students that were heterogeneous in aptitude based on a 10-question test to measure

mathematic skills.

In the above studies, the size of the group varied depending on the level of the

students, the older the students, and the larger the size of the groups. Each of the studies

showed an average of four students per group and mixed the groups according to the

abilities of the students. The distribution of the ability levels in the groups included a high-

ability learner, a low ability learner, and two medium-ability learners. The methodology of the

research of each of the cases looked at a comparison between two groups of students. One

group of students was being taught by using cooperative learning whereas the other group

was using a more traditional lecture classroom setting.

Many studies have shown that students’ academic achievement was better for

students who were involved in a cooperative learning environment, and the effects of

cooperative learning on student achievement can be impressive. For example, the

cooperative learning students in Whicker et al. (1997) had increasingly higher test scores

than the students in the comparison group and significantly outscored the comparison group

on the third chapter test. Students working together toward a common goal enjoy the feeling

of helping one another to be successful, and the longer the groups worked together, the

more beneficial this group work seems to become.

The use of groups divided according to their abilities was beneficial to all students.

Students can learn best from one another when they are required to provide reasoning for

their answers or explain how they arrived at the answers (Walmsley, 2003). For

mainstreamed and slower students, cooperative learning seemed to help bring them up to

speed, possibly because it allowed discussion among group members and a willingness on

the team members’ parts to help and explain both concepts and processes (Bernero, 2000).

Yamarik (2007) found three possible reasons why cooperative learning groups

performed better on exams. First, cooperative learning raised student-instructor interaction.

Students felt more comfortable asking questions as a group than individually. Second,

cooperative learning increased group studying for the exams. Third, the novelty of working in

small groups sparked greater interest in the material.

Each of the research projects previously mentioned found that there was an increase

in student achievement when using cooperative learning. When students strategize together

and discover various ways to solve a problem, they developed a better understanding of the

concept. There was a big contrast in the age of the students that were studied. One study

researched second grade students, whereas the other three studies researched high school-

and college-aged students. The methodology used compared students in two different

groups using different learning styles for two of the previously mentioned articles. The

methodology of the other researched articles compared a group of students and their

achievement based on how they have performed previously.

Making sure that students work cooperatively in their groups can sometimes be a

difficult task. Some students may rely too heavily upon their members to obtain answers to

problems without understanding how those answers were obtained. A possible solution to

this dilemma is to use a group reward system. Both group rewards and individual

accountability are necessary for cooperative methods to be most effective (Whicker et al.,
1997). A reward can be used when each student of the group performs at or above

expectations.

Walmsley (2003) used a group reward system based on student test scores. An

average baseline score, based on previous tests, was calculated for each student. If each

member of the group scored at or above his or her baseline score, then the entire group

received bonus points. This type of reward system encouraged students in each group to

make sure that everyone in the group understood the material before a test. It reinforced the

value of individual accountability and at the same time created the possibility of earning

extra-credit points if everyone in the group did well on the test (Walmsley, 2003).

Whicker et al. (1997) used a similar type of reward system with a little difference.

Using the same type of baseline score calculation, a student could earn four extra points if

his or her test score was 1-10 points above the base score. Six extra points could be earned

with a test score that was more than 10 points above the base score or if the student

achieved a perfect paper. Team scores were computed by adding all the points earned by

group members and dividing the sum by the number of members in the group that took the

test (Whicker et al., 1997). The team with the best score would then receive some type of

recognition or reward.

Both Whicker et al. and Walmsley researched high school students in a mathematics

classroom. Each study used a reward system to help promote the use of cooperative

learning so that all students would have the opportunity to be successful. Both studies found

that it took time for groups to bond with one another and work together effectively. A major

contrast between the two was how the studies were performed. Whicker et al. (1997) used a

quasi-experimental design and compared two different class groups using different teaching

strategies, and Walmsley (2003) used a single classroom setting and looked at how these

students performed based on previous knowledge about the class’s performance.

Attitude is defined as a way of thinking or feeling about something. When working

with students, their attitude can play an important role in the learning process. If a student

feels that he or she can do well and be successful, then he or she usually is successful.

However, if a student feels that he or she cannot do the required work, then he or she may

not be willing to put forth the effort needed to be successful. Cooperative learning can be a
useful tool to help develop a positive attitude toward learning. In the study by Bernero

(2000), those students who struggled with math continued to struggle and became frustrated

with individual work, but improved both academically and in self-confidence (thus leading to

social improvement), when it came to group work. Students working cooperatively often

enjoy the experience and believe that their classmates like them. This belief that they are

accepted by others also allows the students to believe that they are more successful

academically. This perception of success increases students’ self-esteem (Walmsley, 2003).

Cooperative learning has been linked to other positive social or affective outcomes.

One benefit is the increase in social skills of students who participate in group work (Whicker

et al., 1997). These skills can help students perform in situations outside of the school

setting. Being able to work with others can be a very useful attribute to have when seeking

employment in many companies.

It is important to create an atmosphere in the classroom where students feel

comfortable to share their ideas. This may take time for the group members to become

aware of the strengths that each member can bring to the entire group. Structure of the

groups is important. In the research by Gillies (2004) and Yamarik (2007), children in the

structured groups demonstrated less non-cooperative behaviors and less off-task behaviors

than their peers in the unstructured groups. They were more willing to work with others on

the task, listen to what they had to say, and share ideas and information (Gillies, 2004). The

novelty of working in small groups sparked a greater interest in the material (Yamarik, 2007).

Understanding what happens as students work cooperatively together – in particular,

how they interact to facilitate learning and how they perceive these experiences – is critical

to understanding how this approach to learning can be used more effectively in classrooms

to achieve academic and social goals (Gillies, 2004). Helping students to achieve at the

highest academic level possible is important to me. Cooperative learning has been shown

with the reviewed literature to be a useful method at achieving this goal. My study took a

look at the academic achievement and attitude of middle school math students. While

Whicker et al. (1997) also studied achievement and attitude, their study focused on eleventh

and twelfth grade students and my focus was on eighth grade students.
 When students are required to explain, elaborate, and defend their positions to

others, they may be forced to think more deeply about their ideas. However, students who

are listening to the explanations of others are exposed to – and must think about – other

approaches to a given task (Walmsley, 2003). Student relationships and social skills can

improve when cooperative learning is used correctly. It was my intention with this study to

help my students become more appreciative of others and learn how to effectively work with

others. While many studies have been done comparing two groups of students using

different learning strategies, my study looked at one single class using the cooperative

learning strategy and how they improved as a class.

II.Research Question

The purpose of this project is to use group learning to help improve students’ scores

on assessments by developing a positive attitude toward mathematics. I will be examining

the research themes of student achievement and student attitude, in seeking to answer the

research questions:

1.How will students’ attitudes toward math change after cooperatively learning and working

in small groups?

2.What happens to students’ individual achievement after working in cooperative learning

groups?

3.What happens to my teaching and classroom when I implement cooperative learning

groups and teach students how to work in groups cooperatively in math class?

Through this investigation, I hope to better understand if using a cooperative learning

approach helps students understand and enjoy mathematics more. The students will be

given the opportunity to use each other as a resource to solve problems. The success of the

group depends on the cooperation among all group members.

III. Proposed Innovation, Intervention and Strategy

 The research for this paper took place in a K-12 school system of approximately 220

total students located in a small southwest Nebraska community. The “average day” of

teaching during this action research project began by discussing and going through any

student questions that arose from the previous day’s problems. Then a short introduction

was given to the students about the new concept. The majority of the class time was used

for cooperative group work. Students worked together on a specific set of problems from the

textbook. In some circumstances, the students were given general instructions about a topic

and allowed to discuss and formulate their own conclusions. These conclusions then were

shared with the rest of the class until everyone agreed upon a final accepted conclusion.

Generally, this type of activity worked well when all students experienced some type of

success at the beginning of the activity.

In a small school became a difficult time to incorporate this type of research activity.

Many students are involved in several different activities, which caused them to miss class.

This would cause some problems with the group formations if more than one member of a

particular group would happen to be absent the same day.. During interviews with the

students, some of them commented that it was helpful when their group members would

help them when they were absent. This made it easier for me because the students were

able to help one another.

It was as if there were 13 teaching assistants in the classroom.

During this action research project, I was trying to answer questions related to: 1) How will

students’ attitudes toward math change after cooperatively learning and working in small

groups? 2) What happens to students’ individual achievement after working in cooperative

learning groups? 3) What happens to my teaching and classroom when I implement

cooperative learning groups and teach students how to work in groups cooperatively in math

class?

How will students’ attitudes toward math change after cooperatively learning and working in

small groups? Attitude can play a very important role for the success of many students. If a

student believes that he or she can be successful then many times he or she will be

successful. At the conclusion of this project, my assertion is that there is a slight increase in

attitude toward math after group work.

 The students enjoyed working with one another on solving problems. The type of

group formation was mixed among the students. Some students liked it better when the

groups were formed by the teacher and others liked it better when the students formed their

own groups. All the students agreed that it is important to have group members who are

willing to help. The two most common responses to the question on the post-project survey

that said “when working in groups, I wish I could work with a person who is” were a person

who is “smart” and “understanding.”

The pre-project survey and post-project survey showed a slight increase in results as

to changes in attitudes. When asked to rate the question, “I have more confidence to try

problems when I work in a group,” the responses were exactly the same on both the pre-

and post-project surveys. When asked the question, “When I think of Math, I think nervous,

both, or calm”, six students chose calm on the pre-project survey compared to seven

students choosing calm on the post-project survey.

During the interviews, four of the six students interviewed said that they noticed changes in

other students during group work. The students all agreed that they understood better and

did not get as frustrated. Five of the six students interviewed said that they felt that working

in groups has prepared them better to take assessments than working alone. Results from

the students’ pre-project survey showed that nearly 62% of the students compared to the

post-project survey of 77% of the students felt that working in a group helps them to

understand the concepts better. In my teacher journal I wrote: “I felt that the attitudes of the

students was increased during this activity because every student was able to achieve some

success at the beginning of the activity.”

What happens to students’ individual achievement after working in cooperative

learning groups? Even though the students themselves felt a little more confident, when

looking at the nine different individual assessment scores from this project (four curriculum

and five state standard), there was not much change in the performance of the students as a

group. At the conclusion of this project, my assertion is that students’ individual achievement

remains nearly the same after working in cooperative learning groups.

For the curriculum tests, the mean baseline score for the 13 students was an 82.5%.

For test 1 (see Appendix D), the mean score was an 80.2%. For test 2 (see Appendix E), the
mean score was an 80.4%. For test 3 (see Appendix F), the mean score was 76.8%. For

test 4 (see Appendix G), the mean score was 81.5%. This data can be visualized by looking

at the following graph.

Curriculum Assessment Scores

100
90
80
70
60
Assessment Scores
50
Baseline Score
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4
Assessment

The first two tests were taken during the time of teacher-formed groups and the second two

tests were taken during the time of student-formed groups. I noticed that each time the

second test of the different group formations was better than the first test. This causes me to

believe that it might be possible that the longer the groups are together, the better they will

perform.

For the state standard assessments, I looked at the 16 state assessments that the

students had taken prior to my research and found an average of the number of students

that were in each of two categories, met and not met. Prior to my study, on average 10

students were in the met category, and 3 students were in the not met category. For State

Assessment 1 (NE Standard 8.4.4), 9 students were in the met category, and 4 students

were in the not met category. For State Assessment 2 (NE Standard 8.4.6), 12 students

were in the met category, and 1 student was in the not met category. For State Assessment

3 (NE Standard 8.5.3), 9 students were in the met category, and 4 students were in the not

met category. For State Assessment 4 (NE Standard 8.5.4), 9 students were in the met

category, and 4 students were in the not met category. For State Assessment 5 (NE

Standard 8.6.2), 12 students were in the met category, and 1 student was in the not met

category. The chart below shows a visual representation of this data.

As an observer, I recorded in my journal a specific time when group cooperation worked well

academically. A group of three male students were working on a particular problem. One of

the students did not have the same answer as the other two students. Instead of just

agreeing with the majority, a discussion took place, and this group noticed that the two

students who obtained the same answer were actually incorrect. I thought that this showed

the effectiveness that groups can have on their understanding.

Looking at all nine individual assessments taken, the students performed slightly lower than

the baseline mean on the curriculum assessments, but performed at or slightly better than

the previous average on the state standard assessments. From my observation of

classroom work, there were several instances like the above where students helped one

another’s understanding of mathematical ideas. Therefore, overall there does not appear to

be much change in student achievement during the course of this project.

What happens to my teaching and classroom when I implement cooperative learning

groups and teach students how to work in groups cooperatively in math class? As this

project progressed, I noticed myself trying to allow the students to work with their group

members to answer questions before I intervened. I always have been too quick to intervene

when a student is struggling rather than allow them some time to process and think about a

possible solution. This project allowed me to be more of an observer and realize that when

students work together many productive things can occur when the students are given

enough time to discuss with one another.

I noticed that the longer the groups were together, the better the students seemed to be

working with one another. At the beginning of the teacher-formed group period, some of the

students were not very cooperative with their fellow group members. These students did not

feel comfortable working with the other members of the group. As time passed, the students

began to realize that each member of their group does have a special skill that could help

the group perform better. It seemed to be easier for students to work together when the

students formed their own groups. I believe that this is because they were in a group with

their friends who they normally associate with during other parts of the day. I did notice,

however, that it was easier for the students to become distracted and sometimes not stay on

task.

IV.Action Research Method:

a. Participants and other sources of Data and Information

On the first day of research (June 10, 2019), students were asked to complete a

preproject survey (see Appendix A). On the second day, the students were placed in

groups assigned by the teacher based on their previous curriculum assessment scores.

Each group consisted of one student from the top 33%, one student from the middle

33%, and one student from the bottom 33%. Since the class consisted of 13 total

students, one student from the middle 33% was randomly assigned to create a group of

four students.

b. Data Gathering Method

Two different types of individual assessments were given during this project: four

curriculum assessments and five state standard assessments. Curriculum Assessments

1, 3, and 4 consisted of 20 open-ended items involving various types of computation and

problem solving. There were 100 points possible for each assessment, and partial credit

was awarded for any correct but incomplete answers. Curriculum Assessment 2

consisted of 10 open-ended items and was 50 points possible with partial credit awarded

for any correct but incomplete answers.

A group reward system was set up based on the curriculum assessment scores. Each

student was given a baseline score based on their previous curriculum assessment
 average score (before the project began) minus four points. I chose to subtract four

points because I knew that the curriculum was getting more difficult. The reward was 10

bonus points for all members of a group if each member of the group scored at or above

his or her baseline score. During the teacher-formed group period, data was collected on

scores on Curriculum Assessments 1 and 2

(June 11 and June 12) and three different state standard assessments (June 13 and

June 14).On June 17, students then were divided into groups of their own creation.

During this student-formed group period, data was collected on scores of Curriculum

Assessments 3 and 4 (June 18 and June 19 and two different state standard

assessments (June 20 and June 21). The same group reward system was used as was

used for the teacher-formed groups. The class average on each curriculum assessment

was compared to the class average before the project began. For each state standard

assessment, I compared the total number of students who met or did not meet the

standard to the average number of students for each category for all previous state

standards assessments taken before the project began.

During the last week of the project (June 21), six students were randomly selected to

answer a specific set of interview questions (see Appendix B). Following the completion

of the project students were asked to complete a post-project survey (see Appendix C).

The surveys and interview responses were used to help determine how students’

attitudes changed during the cooperative group learning process.

A personal teacher journal also was used as another form of data collection. At the end

of the day on Thursday of each week, I would journal about specific group related

activities for the week. During the 10-week project period, I also commented on what I

noticed about the students’ attitudes related to group work.

c. Conclusion/Recommendation

The findings of this action research showing an improvement in students’ attitudes

toward mathematics are very similar to those of Gillies (2004) and Walmsley (2003). These

studies also found an increase in students’ attitudes after working in cooperative learning

groups. Gillies suggests that there is much to be gained by encouraging the use of this non-

traditional pedagogical approach to teaching in classrooms, particularly when schools are

trying to encourage the development of positive attitudes toward learning, prosocial

behaviors among students, and successful learning outcomes for students. My experiences

with trying cooperative learning in the classroom convinced me that cooperative learning can

have a positive effect on students’ achievement and attitudes toward mathematics. My

findings of no change in students’ academic performance after cooperative learning

experiences contrasts with others’ findings of increase in academic performance, for

example, Yamarik (2007), where the use of cooperative learning was associated with an

increase in combined scores of 4.4 and 5.5 points on a 100-point scale.

Cooperatively working together in groups can help to encourage students to be more

involved with one another. As I experienced with teacher-formed and student-formed

groups and as Gillies (2004) and Yamarik (2007) noted, there are many ways that

groups can be nonproductive, so the way that groups are formed can have an impact on

student learning. It is important that students are taught how to work cooperatively

together. Just placing students together in a group does not always result in cooperative

learning.