Previous Research

Over the last thirty years a great deal of research has been done on cooperative learning in the classroom. An examination of the literature on cooperative learning strategies supports the usefulness of these strategies to improve student performance for almost any desired educational outcome. For example, research has shown that well structured cooperative learning techniques in the classroom improve academic achievement, race relations, gender relations, self esteem, liking of class and student attendance (Johnson & Johnson,1987; Newman & Thompson,1987; Sharan,1980; Slaving 1980, 1982, 1990, 1995; Stahl & VanSicle, 1992). According to Slavin (1982),student seem to enjoy classrooms that employ these techniques.

According to Newman and Thompson (1987) and Slavin (1995), most of the research on cooperative learning has taken place at the elementary level, even though cooperative learning techniques were developed initially for college and adult education (Palmer & Johnson, 1989). Few studies have been conducted at the secondary level and even less research has been initiated in the upper secondary social studies class. Therefore, there is a need to study cooperative learning strategies in the upper secondary classroom.

The cooperative learning techniques used in this study was the Student Achievement Dividions' (STAD) method developed by Robert Slavin (1986). STAD has been described as the simplest of a group of cooperative learning techniques referred to as STudent Team Learning Methods. In the STAD approach students are assigned to four or five member teams reflecting a heterogeneous grouping of high, average, and low achieveing students of diverse ethnic backgrounds and different genders. Each week, the teacher introduces new material through a lecture, class discussion, or some form of a teacher presentation. Team members then collaborate on worksheets designed to expand and reinforce the material taught by the teacher. Team members may (a) work on the worksheets in pairs, (b) take turns quizzing each other, (c) discuss problems as a group, or (d) use whatever strategies they wich to learn the assigned material. Each team will then receive answer sheets, making clear to the students that their task is to learn the concepts not simply fill out the worksheets. Team members are instructed that their task is not complete until all team members understand the assigned material.

Following this team practice, students take individual quizzes on the assigned material. Teammates are notpermitted to help one another on these quizzes. The quizzes are graded by the teacher and individual scores are then calculated into team scores by the teacher. The amount each student contributes to the team score is related to a comparison between the student's prior average or base score. If the student's quiz score is higher than the base score, then that student will contribute positively to the team score. This scoring methods rewards students for improvement (Slavin, 1986). The use of improvement points has been shown to increase student academic performance even without teams (Slaving,1986), and it is an important component of student team learning (Slavin, 1986; 1995).

Team scores are recorded and weekly recognition and rewards are awarded to winning teams and improving students (Slavin,1986). One of the attractive features os STAD is that it is relatively easy for teachers to use. The teacher (a) assigns the students to teams, (b) allows the teams time to study together, (c) gives the students a regular quiz, and(d) calculates improvement and team scores.

Slaving (1986) reviewed eight studies that evaluated STAD. In six of the eight studies, learning had increased significantly over traditional methods. In the two remaining studies there was not significant effect. These studies had all been administered below the tenth grade level.

Newman and Thompson (1987) reported that STAD was the most successful cooperative learning technique at increasing student academic achievement, but the bulk of the research on STAD had been conducted at the elementary level and in subject areas other than social studies. Slavin ( 1995) reported on 29 studies that examined the effectiveness of STAD. He reported that STAD consistently had positive effects on learning. Generally, STAD positively affected (c) cross race relations, (b) attitude toward school and class, (c) peer support, (d) locus of control, (e) time on task, (f) peer relationships and, (g) cooperation. However, Slaving found that few studies examined the effects of STAD on the 7-12 grade levels

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of STAD upon academic achievement and student attitude towards social studies of upper level secondary social studies students. The following research questions were proposed:
1. Will upper secondary social studies students who are given instruction by the STAD cooperative learnin technique score higher on a posttest than students taught the same material by traditional methods? H: There will be a significant difference between treatment (STAD) and comparison groups (traditional) on the criterion variable of academic achievement while holding pretest academic achievement constant.
2. Will upper secondary social studies students who are given instruction by the STAD cooperative learning technique demonstrate a better attitude towards social studies class? H: There will be a significant difference between the treatment (STAD) and comparison groups (traditional) on the criterion variable of student attitude towards their social studies class.

WEBSITE PAGE INFO
HOME| NEWS| LIFESTYLE| FREE DOWNLOADS| EDUCATIONS| CELEBRITY| SPORTS| SUPPORT| CONTACT| ABOUT FADLI| TOP VIDEOS| TOP PICTURES| FREE WIDGETS