SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi / 2010 / Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 1

Effects of cooperative learning vs. traditional instruction on prospective teachers' learning experience and achievement

Zaheer AHMAD
Nasir MAHMOOD
Pages
151–164
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The study has implications for teacher educators to prefer innovative instructional strategies as CL while teaching to prospective teachers.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The study investigated the effects of three experimental conditions on prospective teachers’ learning experience and achievement in the course of Educational Psychology.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The results of repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) reveal that there is statistically significant difference between prospective teachers’ scores on learning experience measure across three experimental conditions.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The study has implications for teacher educators to prefer innovative instructional strategies as CL while teaching to prospective teachers.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The study investigated the effects of three experimental conditions on prospective teachers’ learning experience and achievement in the course of Educational Psychology. The conditions comprised (a) Traditional Instruction (TI) (b) Cooperative Learning Loosely Structured (CLLS) and (c) Cooperative Learning Students Team Achievement Division (CL STAD) model. The study explored change in students’ scores on learning experience and difference in achievement under these experimental conditions. Thirty-two student teachers enrolled in master degree program were the subjects of the study. Repeated measure design was used for the study. Thirty intervention lessons (ten in each condition) were delivered during the whole semester. Learning experience measure and Achievement test were administered at the end of each phase. The results of repeated measure analyses of variance (ANOVA) reveal that there is statistically significant difference between prospective teachers’ scores on learning experience measure across three experimental conditions. ANOVA results also reveal that there is a statistically significant difference in achievement scores favoring both CL conditions. The study concludes that cooperative learning enhances perspective teachers’ academic achievement as compared to traditional instruction and promotes enriched, enjoyable and interactive learning experience. The study has implications for teacher educators to prefer innovative instructional strategies as CL while teaching to prospective teachers.

🔖

Cite This Article

AHMAD, Z., MAHMOOD, N. (2022). Effects of cooperative learning vs. traditional instruction on prospective teachers' learning experience and achievement. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 43 - Sayı: 1, 151–164. https://ajindex.com/articles/442674

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Abrami, P. C. and Chambers, B. (1996). Research on Cooperative learning and achievement: Comments on Salvin. Contemporary Education Psychology, 21, pp. 70-79.
  2. Abrami, P. C., Poulsen, C. and Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to implement an educational innovation: Factors differentiating users and non-users of cooperative learning. Educational Psychology, 24, pp. 201-216.
  3. Antil, L. R., Jenkins, J. R., Wayne, S. K. and Vadasy, P. F. (1998). Cooperative learning: Prevalence, conceptualization, and the relation between research and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35(3) pp. 419-454.
  4. Biggs, J. (2007). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does (2nd Ed.) Berk Shire: Open University Press.
  5. Clinton, B. D. and Kohlmeyer III, J. M. (2005). The effects of group quizzes on performance and motivation to learn: Two experiments in cooperative learning. Journal of Accounting Education, 23, pp. 96-116.
  6. Cohen, E. G. (1994). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small groups. Review of Educational Research, 64(1), pp. 01-35.
  7. Gaith, G. (2001). Learners’ perceptions of their STAD cooperative experience. System, 29, pp. 289-301.
  8. Gaith, G. (2003). Effects of the learning together model of cooperative learning on English as a foreign language reading achievement, academic self-esteem and feelings of school alienation. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3) pp. 451-474.
  9. Gaith, G. (2004). Correlates of the implementation of the STAD cooperative learning method in English as a foreign language. Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7(4) pp. 279-294.
  10. Gömleksiz, M. N. (2007). Effectivness of cooperative learning (Jigsaw II) method in teaching English as a foreign language to engineering students (Case of Firat University, Turkey). European Journal of Engineering Education, 32(5), 613-625.
  11. Hanze, M. and Berger, R. (2007). Cooperative learning, motivational effects, and students’ characteristics: An experimental study comparing cooperative learning and direct instruction in 12th grade physics classes. Learning and Instruction, 17, pp. 29-41.
  12. Johnson, D. W. and Johnson, R. T. (2002). Social interdependence theory and university instruction: Theory into practice. Swiss Journal of psychology, 61(3) pp. 119-129.
  13. Jolliffe, W. (2005). The implementation of cooperative learning in the classroom. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Annual Conference, University of Gloamorgan, 14-17 September 2005. Retrieved fr