ABSTRACT

The current study examines the effect of cooperative learning on students’

motivation and achievement in science. In this trial study matched-pair method was

adopted to differentiate the control and experimental group. Thirty (30) students were

taken in control group and Thirty (30) students were taken in experimental group.

Students Team Achievement Division (STAD) technique of cooperative learning was

applied on the experimental group while traditional method of teaching was used for

control group. The study was sustained for eight (8) weeks from April 1st, 2016 to

May 31, 2016. Pretest and posttest were conducted respectively. Students’

Motivation toward Science Learning (SMTSL) scale developed by Tuan et al. (2005)

was used to explore student’s motivation toward science. This study significantly

shows that the posttest motivation and achievement scores of students were better

than the pretest motivation and achievement scores toward science. The study

promotes cooperative learning approach for science learning. So, cooperative learning

strategies should be applied in teaching of science at elementary levels in Pakistan.

Government of Pakistan should arrange trainings for teachers to use cooperative

learning method.
 LIST OF CONTENTS

Chapter Topic Page

Introduction 1

1.1 Statement of the problem 6

1.2 Objectives of the study 6

1.3 Null hypotheses 6

1.4 Significance of the study 7

1.5 Delimitation of the study 8

2 Review of Related Literature 9

2.1 Historical background of cooperative learning 9

2.2 Different concepts of cooperative learning 10

2.3 Cooperative Learning theoretical roots and perspectives 10

2.3.1 Social interdependence/cohesion perspectives 11

2.3.2 Cognitive perspective of Cooperative Learning 12

2.3.3 Motivational cognitive perspective of Cooperative 12

Learning

2.3.4 Cognitive elaboration perspectives of Cooperative 13

Learning

2.4 Important elements of cooperative learning 14

2.4.1 Positive interdependence in Cooperative Learning 14

2.4.2 Individual accountability in learning process 14

2.4.3 Face-to-face interaction among students 15

2.4.4 Interpersonal skills of students 15

2.4.5 Group processing in learning 15

ii
2.5 Cooperative Learning methods 16

2.5.1 Formal Methods of Cooperative Learning 16

2.5.2 Informal methods of Cooperative Learning 22

2.6 Cooperative learning with motivation and achievement 24

2.7 Positive Aspects of Cooperative Learning 25

2.8 Limitations of Cooperative Learning 26

2.9 Concept of motivation 26

2.10 Functions of motivation 27

2.11 Variables of motivation 27

2.12 Four key ideas of motivation 28

2.13 Advantages for developing positive motivation 28

2.14 Types of motivation 28

2.15 Motivation and science achievement 29

2.16 Motivational science and seven substantive issues 30

2.17 Motivational theories 36

2.18 Cooperative learning related researches 40

2.18.1 Cooperative learning and art category 40

2.18.2 Cooperative learning and science category 47

2.19 Summary of the literature review 52

3 Procedure and methodology of the Study 55

3.1 Design of the research 55

3.2 Sampling of the study 56

3.3 Research instruments 57

3.4 Reliability and validity of the instruments 59

iii
3.5 Procedure of the study 61

3.6 Data analysis 64

4 Analysis and Interpretation of data 65

4.1 Table related to pre-test motivation scores difference between 66

the control and experimental group.

4.2 Table related to pre-test achievement scores difference 66

between the control and experimental group.

4.3 Table related to post-test motivation scores difference 66

between the control and experimental group.

4.4 Table related to post-test achievement scores difference 67

between the control and experimental group.

4.5 Table related to pre-test and post-test motivation scores 67

difference of control group.

4.6 Table related to pre-test and post-test achievement scores 67

difference of control group.

4.7 Table related to pre-test and post-test motivation scores 68

difference of experimental group.

4.8 Table related to pre-test and post-test achievement scores 68

difference of experimental group.

5 Summary, Findings, Conclusions, Discussion & 69

Recommendations
Summary 69

Findings 70

Pre-test and post-test motivation of control and experimental 70

group

iv
Pre-test and post-test achievement of control and 70

experimental group

Pre-test and post-test motivation and achievement of control 71

group

Pre-test and post-test motivation and achievement of 71

experimental group

Conclusions 72

Discussion 72

Recommendations 74

References 75

v
 LIST OF EXTRA TABLES

Table No. Title page

3.1 Research design and procedure 55

3.2 Pair matching of students in experimental and control groups 56

3.3 Division of experimental group 56

3.4 Motivation scale, sub scales and its reliability coefficient 57

values.

3.5 Example for Calculating the value of co- relation 60

vi
 LIST OF ABBREVIATION
ALA Audio Lingual Approach

CIRC Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition

CL Cooperative Learning

EFL English as Foreign Language

GI Group Investigation

MSLQ Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire

MANCOVA Multivariate Analysis of Covariance

ANCOVA Analysis of Covariance

TAT Thematic Apperception Test

ESL English as Second Language

SSQ Social Skill Questionnaire

AAT Agriculture Achievement Test

ANOVA Analysis of variance

BSAS Basic Science Anxiety Scale

ATBSS Achievement Test for Basic Science Students

CAS Chemistry Anxiety Scale

SAQ Students Attitude Questionnaire

BAT Biology Achievement Test

SD Standard Deviation

SMTSL Students’ Motivation Toward Science Learning

STAD Student Team Achievement Division

TAI Team Assisted Individualization

TGT Team Game Tournament

vii
ZPD Zone of Proximal Development

viii
 Chapter 1
Introduction

We are living in a realistic life in which everyone faces many problems. Some

problems are difficult to solve but intelligent and well-educated persons solve these

problems easily with their practical experiences. Practical means doing something to

achieve some aim or objectives. To achieve the aims and objectives in educational

process special teaching techniques are used in which students work one another in

small groups. In this way cooperative learning is being used as an active learning

pedagogy of teaching. Education is a social and informal setting in which students

swapping their ideas through personal involvement and activities (Kagan, 2009).

Students of different levels work in small teams and prepare interaction with each

other’s to enhance their understanding for different concepts (Grabowski, 2007).

In this modern age cooperative learning methods are known as more reliable,

acceptable and most general for learning. Teacher can play a important role as a

helper and facilitator for providing assistance in the procedure of learning.

Cooperative learning enhances self-esteem and interactions with each other through

high communication skills and also decreases anxiety and stress (Foley & Donnell,

2002; Erdem, 2009). In implementation of cooperative learning motivation, praise,

reward and appreciation are given to the best teams. Helpful or unhelpful activities

and pleasant or unpleasant experiences are identified by self-reflection. According to

the different researchers like Johnson & Johnson and Smith (1991a, 1991b), reflection

in implementation of cooperative learning prove the learning activities helpful or

unhelpful to continue or discontinue the future planning.

Cooperative learning has many forms to follow but many researchers have

distinguished cooperative learning in motivational/behavioral, Affective/social

1
cohesion and cognitive elaboration perspectives for deep understanding about

cooperative learning and to explore the extent of cooperative learning regarding

motivation and achievement in science. In this perspectives Slavin (1996); Jhonson &

Jhonson (1999) explained the roots of cooperative learning as like social

interdependence, cognitive, motivational and cognitive elaboration perspectives of

cooperative learning for supporting its strength and scope and enhanced the

motivation and achievement of students.

The five basic elements of cooperative learning discussed by Brown & Paker

(2009); Johnson & Johnson (1994a, 1994b) like positive interdependence in

cooperative learning, Individual accountability in learning process, Face-to-face

Interaction among students, Interpersonal skills of students, Group Processing in

learning.

Due to positive results proved by different researchers and scholars in recent

ages many methods are used in cooperative learning. These methods are divided into

two groups i.e formal and informal methods of cooperative learning. Formal

technique of cooperative learning named as Jigsaw, Cooperative Integrated Reading

and Composition (CIRC), Cooperative Script Learning Method, Learning Together,

Group Investigation, Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD), Team Assisted

Individualization (TAI), Teams Games Tournament (TGT) and Discussion Group.

Informal methods of cooperative learning named as Circle the Sage, Drill Review

Pairs, Laboratory And Projects, Spontaneous Group Discussion, Numbered Heads

Together, Team Pair Solo, Three Minutes Review, Three Step Interview, Group of

Four, and Think-Pair-Share.

Previous researches about cooperative learning have attention on the

development and use of cooperative learning techniques to increase motivation and

2
achievement in science through STAD strategy. STAD is a method of cooperative

learning firstly used by Slavin (1995) and this approach is use as an elective strategy

in these days due to its benefits like high positive interdependence, high interaction,

high quality and quantity of learning experiences.

An experimental study the effect of cooperative learning on the self-esteem

and academic achievement of 9th class students in biology was investigated by Khan

(2012) in which posttest only control group design was used. Through matched pair

sample technique students were divided into two groups like control and experimental

groups on the basis of PEC result. Experimental group received STAD method of

cooperative learning while control group received traditional method of learning.

Rosenberg self-esteem scale was administered for measuring self-esteem towards

biology. High self-esteem and positive academic achievement of students in biology

was showed the effective result for cooperative learning than traditional method of

learning.

Cooperative learning increases and improves the students’ abilities, thinking

skills and academic achievements. High coordination and interaction between the

students make sure the success for every member of the groups. Cooperative learning

makes positive enforcement, increase motivation, built communication skill and

resolve conflict towards learning and instruction (Gaith, 2003). It also improves the

quality of learning, academic achievement, reading skill, listening skill and

vocabulary of students.

Motivation focuses on the cognition and mental disciplines of students during

learning process especially in science (Tuan et al., 2005). Motivation provides

positive environment to students and teachers. It increases comprehension abilities of

students in learning process. In the learning environment students adopt and use their

3
understanding and framework of knowledge. In this present decade, especially in

developing countries, interest in learning of science is increased than developed

counties with high motivation. The high confidence level of students to accomplish

the specific success and task is related to motivation (Millar, Leach & Osborne, 2000;

Hynd et al., 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Motivation is a psychological process which

cannot be observed directly but it shows the individuals’ inner energy, attitude and

direction toward achievement in specific circumstances (Reid, 2006).

Motivation is divided by Alderman (2008) into following three types like

intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, lack of motivation where intrinsic

motivation occurs when individuals engage in their activities on the basis of their own

sake and satisfaction without any external force in which they show their personal

interest, enjoyment and pleasure. According to Bhatia (1997) intrinsic motivation

involves self-reliance, determination, self-awareness and confidence where extrinsic

motivation involves support, encouragement and reward.

Extrinsic motivation occurs when individuals engage in their activities on the

basis of external force, pressure, praise, grades and reinforcement in which they

cannot show their personal interest, enjoyment and pleasure is called extrinsic

motivation. According to Ryan & Deci (2000), extrinsic motivation has different

styles like external style in which individuals externally control and regulate by others

for reward, introjections style in which values of internalization reflects but

individuals control and regulate by external observer, identification style in which

values of self- endorsement play an important role but more control observed by

others and integration style in which goals, values and self- congruence are linked

with control. Whereas lack of motivation occurs when individuals do not create and

4
make the relations and linkage between their activities and outcomes then they are in

lack of motivation (Alderman, 2008).

Needs, behavior and satisfaction are the main properties of motivation.

According to these properties many psychologists have elaborated many theories in

their specific ways. These theories are named as theory of acquired needs by

McClellan, theory of social urges by Adler, learning theories of motivation by

behaviorists, theory of equity by J. Stacy Adams, theory of expectancy by Vroom,

theory of psycho-analytic by Sigmund Freud, Cognitivism goal oriented theory,

theory of drive reduction theory by Hull, theory of self-actualization or hierarchy of

needs by Maslow, theory of instinct by McDougall. Cooperative learning increases

and improves the students’ abilities, thinking skills and academic achievement. High

coordination and interaction between the students make sure the success for every

member of the groups.

In learning of science active, adventurous and investigative instructions/

methods or strategies provide comprehensive understanding for individuals in which

they improve their attitude, motivation and self-esteem. How students learn in the

context of school and how they built their knowledge and mental abilities

successfully? is the basic question in which researchers are interested? The

development of new tools of innovative technology and instructional interventions is

the main focus and addition of researchers (Murphy & Alexander, 2000).

Research reports by different scholars prove the positive results for

cooperative learning in different areas. Psychological, social, academic and

judgmental aspects are the main features of cooperative learning. Cooperative

learning makes positive enforcement, increase motivation, built communication skill

and resolve conflict towards learning and instruction (Gaith, 2003). It also improves

5
quality of learning, academic achievement, reading and listening skill and vocabulary

of students. This study proved that the students who were taught through cooperative

learning were more motivated than the students who were taught with traditional

learning method toward science. So in this study the researcher wants to explore the

different aspects and effects of cooperative learning with using STAD method on

encouragements and motivation of students with their achievements.

1.1 Statement of the Problem

Motivation is a vital factor of science education and it is much compulsory to

increase students’ achievement and performance in science. It is believed that

cooperative learning towards science has an effect on students’ motivation and

achievement in science. This study was conducted to explore “effect of cooperative

learning on student’s motivation and achievement in science.”

1.2 Objectives of the Study

The objectives of study are given as under:

1. To explored the effect of cooperative learning on students’ motivation towards

science.

2. To elaborate the effect of cooperative learning on students’ achievement in

science.

1.3 Null Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were tested in the study:

1. There is no special difference between the experimental and control group in

pre-test scores of motivation towards science.

2. There is no special difference between the experimental and control group in

pre-test scores of achievement in science.

6
 3. There is no special difference between the experimental and control group in

post test scores of motivation in science.

4. There is no special difference between the experimental and control group in

post test scores of achievement in science.

5. There is no special difference between the pretest and posttest scores of

control group in students’ motivation towards science.

6. There is no special difference between pretest and posttest scores of control

group in students’ achievement in science.

7. There is no special difference between the pretest and posttest scores of

experimental group in students’ motivation towards science.

8. There is no special difference between pretest and posttest scores of

experimental group in students’ achievement in science.

1.4 Significance of the Study

This Study elevates cooperative learning approach for science learning. It was

helpful for science as this technique allows students to learn from one another and

also produce a sense of brotherhood, mutual understanding and support each other not

only in education setting but also in their practical life. This study testified that

cooperative learning produces the confidence towards understanding of science

concepts and change the students’ behavior, motivation, attitude and personality. The

study established cooperative learning helpful for innovative technique in which

students may feel their responsibilities and teachers help as facilitators rather than

instructor. The study may also helpful for teachers, researchers, philosophers and

stakeholders as well as for slow learners because in cooperative learning all

participants contribute and success is examined as a whole team success.

7
1.5 Delimitations of the Study

Due to lack of time and resources this study was delimited as under.

1. This study was delimited to 8th grade male students of Government

High School 86/6R Sahiwal.

2. This study was conducted only for science subject.

8
 Chapter 2

Review of the Related Literature

This chapter gives theoretical background with justification and clarification

of cooperative learning, motivation and achievement. Theory and sound explanation

of literature make informative and authentic framework for motivation and

cooperative learning related terms.

2.1 Historical Background of Cooperative Learning (CL)

In Late 1700’s Lancaste and Bell belonging to USA was given the concept of

cooperation. In the early 19th century Dewey’s concept “Learning by doing” was

considered most important concept in which he promoted creativity and cooperation

between the students (Johnson & Johnson, 1991).

Deutsch (1949) studied the smaller groups’ results of cooperative learning and

found better results of learning outcomes. Parker (1994) strongly advocated

cooperative learning (CL) in his Schools to establish the ethics of democratic system.

According to David & Johnson (1975) the mutual sharing, communication and of

students with each other’s promoted by cooperative learning. Democratic

environment plays very important role for the development of knowledge and social

skills in the students’ learning process was the main idea of Dewey (Sharan, 2010).

In this perspective cooperative learning is very old concept but from the past

forty (40) years cooperative learning is considers new one approach for learning in the

educational system. Cooperative learning is being used in education sector in this

modern era for its positive results and it has also becomes a very important field of

research due to its effective instructional strategies (Johnson & Johnson, 2008).

9
2.2 Different Concepts of Cooperative Learning

With the concept of cooperative learning, cooperation among all members

during learning process plays a vital role. A technique in which students learn

academic content with the help of working together in groups or small groups is

called cooperative learning (Kagan, 2009; Slavin, 2011). Students of different levels

and potential working in small teams and prepare interaction with each other’s to

ameliorate their understanding for different concepts. To achieve common goals,

construct knowledge and fill individual gaps of understanding through interaction

with other students is the basic premise of cooperative learning (Johnson, Johnson &

Smith, 1991; Ke & Grabowski, 2007). It is an instructional model in which students

learn through shifting and focusing the ideas is called cooperative learning.

Interactions of students in Groups make possible adaptation to different concepts for

students who have different abilities and different backgrounds (Johnson & Johnson,

1999; Dyson, Griffin & Hastie, 2004; Wyk, 2012).

2.3 Cooperative Learning Theoretical Roots and Perspectives

Cooperative learning as a teaching technique in science is widely used in

Pakistan as compared to traditional techniques of teaching due to activity based

learning, high understanding of knowledge, advanced thinking and reasoning skills

grooming and high motivation for learning and achievement in science. Cooperative

learning increases self-esteem and interactions with each other’s through high

communication skill and also decrease anxiety and stress (Yager & Tamir, 1993;

Nichols & Miller, 1994; Sherman, 1994; Foley & Donnell, 2002; Erdem, 2009).

The roots of cooperative learning elaborated by Slavin (1996) and Jhonson &

Jhonson (1999) like social interdependence, cognitive, motivational and cognitive

10
elaboration perspectives of cooperative learning for supporting its strength and scope

and enhanced the motivation and achievement of students.

2.3.1 Social Interdependence/ Cohesion Perspective

Working together and making chain between the students is the main idea in

cooperative learning in which students make social interdependence in groups or sub

groups without any interest for achievement (Slavin, 1996). Social interdependence

falls in different ways like

• Positive social interdependence

• Negative social interdependence

• No social interdependence

Positive social interdependence exists when like and profitable goals rely on

group actions share in the student’s groups. Negative social interdependence exists

when students only reach for individualized goals if other group members wrong. No

social interdependence exists when achievement goals are unclear and unrelated

(Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008). In this perspective

cohesiveness boost up communication skill, sense of investigation and understanding,

increased brotherhood values among students, construct self-confidence by providing

guidance and counseling.

Many researchers like Lazarowitz (1980); Rich, Amir, & Slavin, Yager,

Johnson & Johnson and Snider (1986); Sharan & Sharan and Shachar (1988);

Mattingly & Sickle (1991); Sharan & Sharan (1992); Johnson (1994); Slavin (1995)

provide Empirical support to Social interdependence/ cohesion perspective of

cooperative learning.

11
2.3.2 Cognitive Perspective of Cooperative Learning

Interpersonal influences, group activities and interaction among students were

also increased students’ motivation achievement and reasoning for mental processing.

The concept of this perspective based on Jean Piaget theory of cognitive development

and Vygotsky theory for realization of cooperative learning. Cognitive conflict among

individuals increase interaction and a disequilibrium in individual’s mind increase

understanding in learning (Domon, 1984).

According to the concept of Vygotsky students’ interaction through their

surrounding culture is the base of learning. Vygotsky introduced the term of (ZPD)

Zone of Proximal Development for cognitive development of students. When students

get knowledge and do things by more knowledgeable and more experienced persons it

is called (ZPD) Zone of Proximal Development. It also increases the right skills and

thinking abilities, personal competencies and performing skills in students (Vygotsky,

1978).

Many other researchers like Murry (1982); Shran, Kussel, Hertz, Bejarano &

Raviv (1984); Damon (1984); Enright & Closkey (1985); Slavin (1996); Hartman

(1999); Brasford & Brown (2000) also refer to the concept of Vygotsky with (ZPD)

Zone of Proximal Development in which group members with the help of experienced

peers achieved common goals.

2.3.3 Motivational Cognitive Perspective of Cooperative Learning

In the mid of 1900s Skinner’s work for behavioral learning more appreciated

in which Skinner point out that the individuals work more on their goals for achieving

results for getting rewards and if they perceived no reward and positive reinforcement

then they fail to achieve their goals (Johnson et al., 1998). Consistency towards

12
achievement of a task or goal is the main characteristics of this perspective (Reid,

2006).

Motivation means having the wish and willingness to achieve goals by

creating interest and encouragement in learning process. Motivation is the most

important part of learning. It motivates the students’ self-interest intrinsically or

extrinsically through reward and punishment and group reinforcement. Reward and

punishment of groups shows individuals’ motivation toward their goals (Deutsch,

1962). If members of groups show good performance, then motivation is high and if

groups show poor performance then motivation of group members is low. Social

Interaction among students provides opportunities for inspiration, participation and

more motivation to groups in working (Slavin et al., 2003).

2.3.4 Cognitive Elaboration Perspectives of Cooperative Learning

Cognitive Elaboration refers to explore and explained more values for thinking

and learning process. In this regard participants restructure and rehearsal the values

and make thinking schemas to achieved their goals. Developing and adding new

information, reestablishing and restructure the knowledge with existing knowledge is

the main characteristics of Cognitive Elaboration Perspectives (yok & Hooper, 1998;

Slavin, 2011). Providing opportunities to students for clarification and explanation of

their ideas independently in their own views in front of their peers and in learning

process is the main feature of this perspective. In this view Zakaria, Chin & Daud

(2010); Palinassar & Brown (1984); Wittrock (1986); Steven, Slavin and Farnish

(1991); Rosenshine & Meister (1994); Donnell & Kelly (1994); Donnell (2000);

Webb (2008); Slavin (2011) provide Empirical support to Cognitive Elaboration

perspective of cooperative learning.

13
2.4 Important Elements of Cooperative Learning

The five basic elements of cooperative learning discussed by Brown & Paker

(2009); Johnson & Johnson (1994a & 1994b) like positive interdependence in

cooperative learning, Individual accountability in learning process, Face-to-face

Interaction among students, Interpersonal skills of students, Group Processing in

learning.

2.4.1 Positive Interdependence in Cooperative Learning

It is a vital and first basic principle of cooperative learning in which members

of the groups depend with each other and make exertion for one common goal.

Positive interdependence exists when similar and beneficial goals depend on group

actions share in the student’s groups. Negative social interdependence exists when

students only reach for individualized goals if other group members wrong. No social

interdependence exists when achievement goals are unclear and unrelated (Johnson &

Johnson, 2009; Roseth, Johnson & Johnson, 2008).

Positive interdependence makes good communication, good orientation and

good coordination among all individuals of groups where all individuals of a group

have importance to achieve task or goal. In other words, every member of the group is

responsible for their work (Abrami, Poulsen & chambers 2004).

2.4.2 Individual Accountability in Learning Process

In this element every participant contributes, assist and guide to their compeer

in learning process. Every person has individual worth and values and considered

accountably responsible for his mates of group (Slavin, 1995). When group fail to

achieve goals, it means that every member of a group sits in passive mood and not

ideal to share the ideas among the students.

14
2.4.3 Face-to-Face Interaction among Students

According to this principle individual discussed meaningful ideas with each

other and facilitate the others effort to resolve problems. Without face moving face

every member in group interact easily to others, seating arrangement plays an

important role in this purpose.

2.4.4 Interpersonal Skills of Students

In cooperative learning Interpersonal skills of students meant high

communication skill, self-confidence, leadership skill, decision making according to

situation and trust building in all the members of a group. It is important principle

that skillful teacher provides more facilitation and more guidance to groups in

learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1994a)

2.4.5 Group Processing in Learning.

There are two levels point out by Johnson & Johnson (1994a) are class and

group level. This element is about how groups perform and achieve goals by doing

their assignments and tasks in learning. It provides the judgmental decisions about

groups as like how groups are doing, why groups are different, what is the behavior of

groups, what interaction create among groups, what performance difference between

the groups and how much groups achieved their goals. There are three types of groups

described by the Johnson, Johnson & Smith (1998) as like Informal groups, Formal

Groups and Cooperative base group.

In the Informal group teacher wants attention from individuals for achieving

specific subject, topic or material. These groups also considered as temporary groups

in which teacher take few minutes for demonstration and teaching.

Formal Groups are managed and full of consideration and involvement. These

groups are provided understanding and comprehension toward academic assignments

15
by explaining, arranging, predicting, integrating and summarizing the conceptual

instructions. Time taken for these groups is one period to some weeks.

Cooperative base groups are permanent and long term groups consisting with

three or five group members. These groups remain for a long period as like one

semester or one year to promote achievement in learning. In these types of groups

students built long term support, relationship, encouragement and social interactions

with their peers. Cooperation between groups is more extensive due to its students

increase their cognitive development and also improves their quality of learning

(Sharan, 1990).

2.5 Cooperative Learning Methods

Due to positive results proved by different researchers and scholars in these

decades several methods used in cooperative learning. These methods classified in

two groups like formal methods of cooperative learning and informal methods of

cooperative leaning.

2.5.1 Formal Methods of Cooperative Learning

A. Jigsaw Method of Cooperative Learning

This method was introduced by Aronson and his colleagues Aronson &

Pantone (1997) in which there are two versions described named as Jigsaw II and

Jigsaw III. Mostly five to six students select as a team in this method of cooperative

learning. Every student of home group assigned different topics consists of one

lesson. Students find other members having same topics or same piece of information

by leaving their original or home group for making expert team. The all members of

this expert team work together on assigned topics or information and make decision

for what best way used to teach the other peers of original or home group. After that

students come back to their home group and every student teach the part of his given

16
assignment and also discussed and share their ideas with home group members.

Reward is not specific but grades are given to individual performance of groups

(Knight & Bohlmeyer, Sharan, 1990).

This modification of jigsaw based on individuals’ achievement and

performance for competing specific group rewards. Points are given to every member

of groups for improving performance, comprehension in assigned topics and

achievement (Aronson, 1978). Jigsaw III method was introduced by Spencer Kagan

(2009) as bilingual classrooms. In these modification groups of cooperative learning

consists of one native speaker, one non-native speaker and one bilingual student in

which whole learning material are bilingual (Knight & Bohlmeyer, Sharan, 1990).

B. Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC)

Slavin (1995) was considered as the pioneer of this method of cooperative

learning. The main characteristic of this method was it focused on reading and writing

and learns vocabulary for different stories. The main purpose to develop this method

is learning of languages in elementary or higher level of classes, improvement in

reading and writing skill of students. Usually four different groups working together

on reading and writing and learns vocabulary for different stories and assigned

materials.

C. Cooperative Script Learning Method

Two groups performed in this method commonly used for language classes in

which student of one group narrate the story and all other students listens it attentively

for error corrections. Same as all the students or group members repeat this procedure.

The reading purposes in this method are reading for facts or detail, for getting main

ideas, creating interference and attention (Dansereau,1988).

17
 D. Learning Together

Johnson & Johnson (1994) have great work for this method. Team work with

high coordination, group discussions, group activities and working with cooperation

for any level and subject is the main aim of this method. Students work in groups as a

team and combined together as joined hands for the completion of the task and after

completion and achieving the task groups are rewarded and praised (Kessler, 1992).

E. Group Investigation

This method introduced by Sharan & Sharan (1992) in which students of

groups select their topic choices independently. According to Sharan & Sharan (1999)

teacher and students investigate, evaluate and suggest the report in specific sequence

as like topic selection, planning, analyzing, synthesizing, presentation, evaluating and

finalization the topic in this method of cooperative learning. There are three types of

groups described by the Johnson, Johnson & Smith, (1998) like Informal groups,

Formal Groups and Cooperative base group.

In the Informal group teacher wants attention from individuals for achieving

specific subject, topic or material. These groups also considered as temporary groups

in which teacher take few minutes for demonstration and teaching. Formal Groups are

managed and full of consideration and involvement. These groups are provided

understanding and comprehension toward academic assignments by explaining,

arranging, predicting, integrating and summarizing the conceptual instructions. Time

taken for these groups is one period to some weeks. Cooperative base groups are

permanent and long term groups consisting with three or five group members. These

groups remain for a long period as like one semester or one year to promote

achievement in learning. In these types of groups students built long term support,

relationship, encouragement and social interactions with their peers. Cooperation

18
between groups is more extensive due to its students increase their cognitive

development and also improves their quality of learning.

F. Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD)

Slavin (1995) known as the pioneer of this method that is famous and valid for

learning. Four or five students with performance level as low, average and high

achievers represent the group in this method of cooperative learning. Groups are made

on the base of mental abilities, locality, gender, ethnic behaviors and intelligence

between the group members in which teacher plays his role as facilitator. During

learning process this approach is divided into three parts as like, on first day teacher

provide instruction according to subject matter to the whole group. In the second day

of learning after providing instructions the teacher recall the previous lesson for

discussion among the groups. At the last and the third day of learning process quizzes

given to the individuals by the teacher for discussion. Quiz score of individuals

collected and counted in which each member of the group contributes to achieving the

high scores. Individuals and groups appreciated if they showed good performance.

• Research Studies in Students Team Achievement Division (STAD)

Iqbal (2004) with sample of sixty-four (64) students explore the cooperative

learning effect on achievement of students in mathematics for 10th class in which on

the basis of pretest all sixty-four(64) students were equally divided into control and

experimental groups. In this ten-week study STAD method was used for experimental

group and traditional method of teaching received by control group. As compared to

control group experimental group showed significantly high results in the study.

Paired and independent sample t-test showed the results significantly in the favor of

STAD.

19
 The cooperative learning strategies effect on peer attachments explored by

Kadir, Laun, Pihie, Yaccob, Tarmizi & Elias (2005). Two hundred thirteen (213)

students with the age of Sixteen to twenty (16-20) years selected for conducting this

experimental study in which one thirty-three (133) Girls and Eighty (80) Boys were

selected. One twenty (120) students were considered in experimental group and ninety

(90) students taken in control group. In this study quasi experimental study

experimental group received (STAD) technique and control group received traditional

method of teaching for the period of eight weeks. Results was showed that negative

significant differences in the mean of peer attachment force in experimental and

control group but some students found in social relations in this process.

In South Korea the cooperative learning effect investigated by Norman (2005)

with using STAD method in English at 5th and 8th grade classes of elementary level.

Two groups as like control and experimental groups produced in which 5th class

considered control group and 6th grade was considered experimental group for the

period of 2 months. Experimental group received STAD method of cooperative

learning whereas pretest and posttest was used for control group. STAD method was

given greater achievement towards attitude of English language.

An experimental study was conducted by Wyk (2012) in which he was

explored the STAD effect by using cooperative learning on attitude, achievement and

motivation toward economic education. Quasi experimental design was used in the

study and one sixty-eight (168) selected from B.Ed. classes as a sample by using

proportional stratified sampling technique. Eighty-three (83) students were considered

in experimental group and eighty-five (85) students were taken in control group for

the period of twelve (12) weeks. Particularly in economics education cooperative

20
learning’s technique of STAD found more effective for positive change in perception

of students and motivation.

G. Team Assisted Individualization (TAI)

This method was introduced by Slavin (1996) is closely related to STAD but

the key difference is that number of activities in TAI more than STAD as like group

discussions, presentations, group activities, quizzes and group recognition are very

important part of this method. This method commonly used for teaching mathematics

at lower or primary level classes.

H. Teams Games Tournament (TGT)

Edwards & Vries (1972) used this method first time but secondly it was

refined by Slavin and his colleagues. STAD and TGT are more similar methods but

the key difference is that at the end of learning process in TGT tournaments are

conducted between the students of groups. Presenting the lecture, individualized

quizzes completion, group working activities, delivering the worksheets and reward

for groups are also essential parts of TGT. Two teams named as “home team” and

“tournament team” was made for conducting tournaments among groups. Four

students of different achievement level are included in home teams and the same

ranked students named as “homogeneous teams” placed in tournament team for

competition. This method commonly used to learn for science concepts (Slavin,

1988).

I. Discussion Group

Solving problems with mutual discussion, investigation and group

synthesizing for summarizing the findings of problem is the main feature of this

method. Every member contributes his discussion independently and democratically

in academic inquiry (Sharan & Sharan, 1990: 17). Clearance of tasks before learning,

21
responsibility of each member and the leader selection are the essential parts of this

method. Leader should have the qualities of leadership, qualities of management,

organizational skills and high academic performance. To check, facilitate and guide

the members of his group is the main responsibility of group leader (Slavin, 1991).

2.5.2 Informal Methods of Cooperative Learning

A. Circle the Sage

Teacher selects the more knowledge able and expert students who have best

information and understanding about the given specific topic in this informal method

of cooperative learning. More knowledge able and expert students sit in the corner of

the room and other students sit around the expert students in circle shape. Students

come back on their specific seats after getting information by expert students.

B. Drill Review Pairs

Students or members are presenting two different problems in two comparison

groups to find solutions. Member of one group explain the problem solution with

understanding and comprehension. Other group members examined and clarified this

solution attentively. After that other group’s member defined and explains the other

problem against one group for clarification.

C. Laboratory and Projects

In this method students divided into different teams for completing different

specific tasks and projects. The team members of groups are working together to

complete specific projects with great consideration. Project and tasks equally divided

to all group members due to its every member considered responsible. Project reports

collected, summarized and analyzed by the instructor at the end of academic year.

22
 D. Spontaneous Group Discussion

According to Roger, Olsen and Kagan (1992) during lecture presentation

teacher asked questions and pose a problem spontaneously from members of different

group for solution. Students discussed solution of problem with all group members

independently and in a democratic style. Students also share and communicate their

ideas freely with their peers. This method increased collaboration, cooperation,

thinking skill, self-confidence and listening skill of students.

E. Numbered Heads Together

In this method students find the solution of problem through randomly

selected members i.e. four groups with four members such as A, B, C, D is designed

and specific number as like 1-2-3-4 allotted to every member of the group. If all

members of groups having number 3 find the solution of problem then the number of

3 from all groups named as A, B, C, D working together to find solution (Kagan,

1990).

F. Team Pair Solo

This technique is most important for those group members who don’t find

solution of problems independently and also wants support and facilitation in

learning. In this method students discussed and find the problem solution with their

partner in team pair solo and after that students solve the problem lonely. This method

also increased the students’ motivation and self-esteem (Kagan, 1990).

G. Three Minutes Review

During discussion or lecture presentation in class for any moment teacher

provide three minutes to think about giving instructions or presentation for review.

After reviewing about presentation in three (3) minutes teacher asks question about

specific topic or specific piece of information from group members or students.

23
 H. Three Step Interview

Three steps of interview involve in this method of cooperative learning. For

clarification and gaining comprehension, each member of the group interviews his

partner in first step of this method. Similarly, the second partner interviews from his

first partner in second step of interview. All member communicates, collaborate and

share their partners’ responses with whole team is the last step of this method (Kagan,

1990).

I. Group of Four

This method is commonly used for science subjects especially in mathematics.

There are four steps followed by the instructor varies from investigation model of

Burns’ (1981).

• Four members of a group worked together.

• All Members of groups are randomly selected.

• Specific task assigned to each member of group.

• Same problems are given to all groups.

J. Think-Pair-Share

Instructor delivered his lecture presentation when students of specific groups

sit in pairs in the class and raises the questions for answers about specific topic.

Students think with their pair members for solution of problem. At last at the end all

pair members described their solutions or answers in front of all pairs for agreed

responses upon answers or solution.

2.6 Cooperative Learning with Motivation and Achievement

Cooperative learning is a strategy in which small groups of students active

interdependently in different activities for achieving rewards for leaning. It promotes

collaboration among students to talk about various perspectives and also provide

24
different teaching strategies to teacher for learning process (Slavin, 1980). Working

together with highest cooperation is the primary benefit of cooperative learning

(Chickering & Gamson, 1987). Cooperative learning increases students’ knowledge

understanding, confidence and critical thinking skills. Threatened Students also feel

more comfortable for asking questions from their peers. Due to its clear and affective

benefits scholars advocated cooperative learning for learning process. Research

reports by different scholars proved the positive results for cooperative learning in

different areas. Psychological, social, academic and judgmental aspects are the main

features of cooperative learning (Sharan & Sharan, 1999; Keachie, 1978).

2.7 Positive Aspects of Cooperative Learning

1. Cooperative learning develops students’ Ideas that they learn trough social

context and Students of different levels and abilities working in small teams

and prepare interaction with each other’s to improve their understanding for

different concepts.

2. Cooperative learning increases students’ knowledge understanding,

confidence and critical thinking skills. Threatened Students also feel more

comfortable for asking questions from their peers. It promotes collaboration

among students to talk about various perspectives and also provide different

teaching strategies to teacher for learning process.

3. Cooperative learning makes positive enforcement, increase motivation, built

communication skill and resolve conflict towards learning and instruction. It

focused on psychological, social, academic and judgmental aspects of

students. It also improves quality of learning, academic achievement, reading

skill, listening skill and vocabulary of students.

25
 4. In the learning of science active, adventurous and investigative instructions/

methods or strategies of cooperative learning provide comprehensive

understanding for individuals in which they improve their attitude, motivation

and self-esteem

2.8 Limitations of Cooperative Learning

According to Slavin (1995) there are some draw backs, restrictions and

limitations found in the approach of cooperative learning. These draw backs,

restrictions and limitations are as below:

1. Careful planning needed to apply cooperative learning methods.

2. “Free loading” create when methods of cooperative learning not constructed

according to nature situations. Where “Free loading” meant only few

individuals participating while all other individuals remain passive.

3. Necessary involvement of individuals required to achieve complete goals.

4. Only group members touch with another beside other group members.

5. Unhealthy environment created sometimes due to uncooperative individuals.

6. The role of teacher remains passive because he give only assistance when

needed.

7. More time required sometime to complete the goals and tasks in cooperative

learning.

2.9 Concept of Motivation

Mover is a Latin verb with the meaning of “Move” so the term motivation is

derived from this word in which individual energize or moving with activities to

accomplish the specific tasks (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Motivation focused on the

cognition and mental disciplines of students during learning process especially in

science. In the learning environment students adopt and use their understanding and

26
framework of knowledge (Hynd et al., 2000). In present decade in developing

countries interest in learning of science increased than developed counties with high

motivation (Millar, Leach & Osborne, 2000). The high confidence level of students to

accomplish the specific success and task is related to motivation. It is a psychological

process which cannot be observed directly but it showed the individuals’ inner

energy, attitude and direction toward achievement in specific circumstances (Reid,

2006)

2.10 Functions of Motivation

There are three basic functions described by Alderman (2008) of motivation as

like

1. Stimulating behavior

2. Giving a particular direction to behavior

3. Controlling consistency in behavior

Motivation is not a trait of personality and not a instinctive concept of learner

but also a construction of learners’ activities and individual learning experiences

(Bouffard & Couture, 2003).

2.11 Variables of Motivation

The Students’ motivation toward science measures by following variables.

1. Attitude

2. Perceived goals

3. Perceived needs

4. Perceived values

Where

Attitudes involves the measurement of individuals’ behaviors and things,

perceived goals include the individuals aims and goals, perceived needs showed

27
 the aspiration of individuals and perceived values related to the attached values

and specific actions of individuals (Reid, 2006).

2.12 Four Key Ideas of Motivation

Reid (2006) has described the four key ideas of motivation as like self-efficacy

which includes the ability and beliefs to achieved the tasks in specific situations, Self-

esteem which is related to overall sense of personal values, Confidence which is

related to the individuals’ best predictions and accomplishment and Self-concept

provide the thinking abilities with self-evaluation of individuals.

2.13 Advantages for Developing Positive Motivation

There are some advantages for developing positive motivation described by scholar as

1. Positive motivation increased interest in group activities (Parsons et al., 2001;

Reid and Yang, 2002).

2. It provides direction to individuals about what is most important for them in

life (Skryabina, 2000)

3. Positive motivation reflects the aspiration and real needs of learners according

to curricula (Reid, 2000; Mbajiorgu & Reid, 2006)

4. It develops full focus on teaching material and also increase capacity of

working memory (Johnstone, 1997; Reid, 2009a)

5. It reflects the thinking and understanding skills and also develops the system

of assessment (Almadani et al., 2012).

2.14 Types of Motivation

Motivation categorized by Alderman (2008) into following three types as like

1. Intrinsic motivation

2. Extrinsic motivation

3. Lack of motivation

28
 1. Intrinsic motivation

When participants are busy in their activities on the basis of their own sake

and satisfaction without any external force in which they showed their personal

interest, enjoyment and pleasure is called intrinsic motivation. According to Bhatia

(1997) intrinsic motivation involves self-reliance, determination, self-awareness and

confidence where extrinsic motivation involves support, encouragement and reward.

2. Extrinsic motivation

When participants are busy in their activities on the basis of external force,

pressure, praise, grades and reinforcement in which they not displayed their personal

interest, enjoyment and pleasure is called extrinsic motivation.

According to Ryan & Deci (2000) extrinsic motivation has different styles as

like external style in which individuals externally controlled and regulate by others for

reward, introjections style in which values of internalization reflects but individuals

controlled and regulated by external observer, identification style in which values of

self- endorsement plays an important role but more control observed by others and

integration style in which goals, values and self- congruence linked with control.

3. Lack of motivation

When individuals not create and make the relations and linkage between their

activities and outcomes then they are in lack of motivation (Alderman, 2008).

2.15 Motivation and Science Achievement

In the learning of science active, adventurous and investigative instructions/

methods or strategies provide comprehensive understanding for individuals in which

they improve their attitude, motivation and self-esteem. How students learn in the

context of school and how they built their knowledge and mental abilities

successfully? is the basic question in which researchers are interested? The

29
development of new tools of innovative technology and instructional interventions is

the main focus and addition of researchers (Murphy & Alexander, 2000).

2.16 Motivational Science and Seven Substantive Issues

In the motivational science seven Substantive issues describe by Higgins &

Kruglanski (2000); Pintrich & Schunk (2002); Wigfield & Eccles (2002a); Volet &

Jarvela (2001); Sansone & Harackiewicz (2000) and Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele,

(1998) for the current and future directions. The Substantive issues are as below:

1. What do individuals or learners want?

2. What motivates individuals or learners in the classrooms?

3. How do individuals or learners get what they want?

4. Do individuals or learners know what they want/ what motivates them?

5. How does motivation of individuals or learners lead to cognition and cognition

to motivation?

6. How does motivation develop and change in the individuals or learners?

7. What is the role of culture and context on individuals or learners?

1. What Do Individuals or Learners Want?

This is a central and main issue of science motivation in which basic needs of

individuals and learners defined through learner’s self-determination. Relatedness,

autonomy and competence are three basic needs that are applied on individuals in all

situations for their satisfaction, increasing motivation, cultural adaptation and for self-

determination (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Self-esteem and personal self-worth is an

important component to decrease the fear and failure for achieving high motivation.

Attributions and social–cognitive perceptions of competencies also built the

relationship between self-esteem and self-worth (Covington & Dray 2002).

30
 The term self-worth explained by Crocker & Wolfe (2001) in his domain-

specific model in which he explained the influence of self-worth in motivation by

using three motives such as achievement needs, affiliation needs and power needs in

different situations. Self-worth theories and self-determination theories assumed that

learners and individuals have same basic needs (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002).

2. What Motivates Individuals/ Learners in The Classrooms?

In educational settings the construction of socio-cognitive settings and school

related beliefs of individuals have an important role for increasing motivation in the

context of learning (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). The recent researchers focused on the

following fifth families of socio-cognitive settings.

I. The family with competence perception and self-efficacy beliefs

II. The family with control and attributions beliefs

III. The family with intrinsic motivation and high interest beliefs

IV. The family with beliefs of high task values

V. The family with goal orientation and direction beliefs

I. The Family with Competence Perception and Self-Efficacy Beliefs

Individuals have high achievement in motivation and positive behavior when

their expectations are satisfactory due to this they become more motivated and work

hard and perform better (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). Positive expectations make

individuals more competence and more successful due to high self-determination,

more self-efficacy and self-worth of individuals. Individuals who are beliefs that they

can perform well are more motivated and those who are beliefs that they cannot

perform well are less motivated (Bandura, 1997; Eccles et al., 1998; Pintrich &

Schunk, 2002). So, in the context of classroom knowledge calibration, competency,

31
expertise, and self-efficacy beliefs of individuals play an important part for learning

(Pintrich, 2000d; Pintrich & Zusho, 2002; Stone, 2000).

II. The Family with Control and Attributions Beliefs

This family has control and attribution beliefs in the construction of

motivation. According to Skinner (1996) the students who believe that they have

more personal control and attributions are more motivated than other students. To

achieve higher level of academic learning students’ personal control and attribution

engaged them with full determination (Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Skinner et al.,1998).

The theory of self-determination described the autonomy perceptions, intrinsic locus

of causality and competence behavior adaptations for better performance and

achievement. This theory helps the students for adopting different styles of motivation

as like intrinsic and extrinsic with related to their personal control (Ryan & Deck,

2000; Grolnick, Gurland, Jacob, & Decourcey 2002).

III. The Family with Intrinsic Motivation and High Interest Beliefs

Personal interest and intrinsic motivation of students (like interest in outing,

interest in music, interest in games and interest in computer etc.) more motivate the

students than beliefs about control and competence. Personal characteristics and

curiosity is the main functions of interest, if specific interest of students showed at

higher level then students with higher cognitive engagement are more motivated

(Eccles et al., 1998; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002) When students are more autonomous

and determinants then their interest found at higher level of experiences according to

cognitive desired and motivational outcomes (Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000; Krapp,

2002).

32
 IV. The Family with Beliefs of High Task Values

Beside the intrinsic motivation and high interest beliefs mostly researchers as

like Wigfield & Eccles, (1992, 2002b); Eccles et al., (1998) found in their studies that

task values and expectancy values provide an important framework for outcomes.

This idea is related to the multiple pathways and multiple outcomes of achievement

and learning in socio cognitive perspectives.

V. The Family with Goal Orientation and Direction Beliefs

In the school setting this family has believed on content of goals, multiple

goals and nature of goals and orientation of goals that play an important part in

achievement, learning, adjustment and outcomes situations. In this context Ford

(1992); Wentzel (2000) explore twenty-four (24) goals in his taxonomy that Students

pursue with values as like costs, interest, utility and importance that are suggested.

3. How do individuals or learners get what they want?

How individuals get what they want is central issue noted by Higgins &

Kruglanski (2000) for motivational science in which values, goals, interest and beliefs

are involved. Self-regulation, planning, control, monitoring, mental abilities and

modification of behavior are individuals’ goals which are explained (Boekaerts et al.,

2000; Zimmerman, 2000). Students who plan their activities, monitor, coordinate and

control with their own sake and mental abilities, motivation and behavior are

performed well in school environment (Pintrich, 2000d). Self-regulation is the main

characteristics of this issue (Wolters, 1998).

4. Do Individuals or Learners Know What They Want/ What Motivates

Them?

Self-awareness, consciousness, self-regulation and control behavior is the

main theme of this issue. Intentional and mental abilities work with motive needs and

33
operate influence of behavior and cognition. In this perspectives if awareness and

consciousness are in positive direction then students performed better and the need for

knowing what students wants is not important (Schultheiss, 2001). Unconsciousness

and personal will pursue the goals with outside control of conscious and automated

directions (Bargh, Gollwitzer, Lee-Chai, Barndollar, & Trotschel, 2001)

5. How Does Motivation of Individuals or Learners Lead to Cognition

and Cognition to Motivation?

Remembering, understanding, summarizing and knowledge retention is the

basic theme of this issue (Bandura, 1997). Development and acquisition of knowledge

is the mental process such as thinking, reasoning and attention. In this perspective the

best uses of self-regulated learning and cognitive strategies with involvement of

content provide high conceptual change of students. But some cognitive factors of

motivation influence on development and acquisition of knowledge (Pintrich, 1999,

2000d; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992). The cognitive factors decrease or increase the

devotion toward academic task with negative and positive effects (Pekrun, 1992;

Pekrun et al., 2002).

6. How Does Motivation Develop and Change in The Individuals or

Learners?

Researchers have many questions towards motivational development but

Wigfield & Eccles (2002a) described four silent questions such as:

1. How individuals construct and understand motivation and how they construct

meaning of motivation and change with time and age?

2. How these motivational constructions become more complex and

differentiated with age?

34
 3. How the levels of motivational constructions become more qualitative with

change over time?

4. What relations between different outcomes and motivational changes and what

relation between developmental motivation change and contextual?

According to Pintrich & Zusho (2002) this issue has two basic needs beside the

above questions and issues such as:

a) Age related and general developmental motivation

b) Micro level motivation and developmental changes.

In this view values, interest, personal efforts, personal abilities, personal

understandings and intelligence related with age and general development for

motivation. The characteristics of micro level motivation and developmental changes

are a good evidence for cross sectional and longitudinal studies in which students

become more adaptive and dynamic.

7. What is the Role of Culture and Context on Individuals or Learners?

This issue is about the understanding of internal, basic and stable role of cultural

and contextual process in motivation. The important role of culture and context in the

motivation process is not universal but cultural and ethnic values have effect on

motivational constructs. In this perspective social processes and individuals have

strong relation for learning and increasing motivation (Anderson et al., 2000).

The systematic cultural differences and similarities with indicators of emotions,

motivation and cognition were measured by Kitayama (2002) that reflects the

motivational constructs.

35
2.17 Motivational Theories

Needs, behavior and satisfaction are the main functions of motivation.

According to these functions many psychologists elaborayed different theories in their

own ways. These theories as:

1. Theory of Acquired Needs by Mcclellan

2. Theory of Social Urges by Adler

3. Learning Theories of Motivation by Behaviorists

4. Theory of Equity by J. Stacy Adams

5. Theory of Expectancy by Vroom

6. Theory of Psycho-Analytic by Sigmund Freud

7. Cognitivism Goal Oriented Theory

8. Theory of Drive Reduction Theory by Hull

9. Theory of Self-Actualization or Hierarchy of Needs by Maslow

10. Theory of Instinct by McDougall

1. Theory of Acquired Needs by McClellan

This theory is similar to Alderfer’s and Maslow’s theories in which McClellan

explain the acquired needs from life experiences such as:

a) Achievement Needs in which achievement for something is difficult but made

easy with high encouragement.

b) Affiliation Needs in which individuals have personal relationships with

reward.

c) Power Needs in which individuals controlling others to get what they want.

Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) was used to measure these needs.

36
 2. Theory of Social Urges by Adler

Social urges motivated the human beings according to their basic drives as

like security and motive drives and single need superiority and inferiority is the main

theme of this theory. The basic and dominant need for security including

encouragement for achievement, struggle for status and power are great motives of

human beings.

3. Learning Theories of Motivation by Behaviorists

In special circumstances why and how we behave is the basic view of

behaviorists. Sometimes the behavior of human beings guided through stimulus and

sometimes the behavior of human beings guided through reinforcement. The

mechanism of stimulus and response emphasized by Thorndike as classical

conditioning advocated by Pavlov and skinner with Watson emphasized mechanism

of reinforcement and response with the name of operant conditioning. According to

Bandura’s social learning theory motivation is based on social reward.

4. Theory of Equity by J. Stacy Adams

According to this theory human being motivate by the ratio of reward and

compare with others and they also think about others rewards. This view is

complicated in the following sense such as:

a) People become aggressive and rumors without knowing that how and why

other human beings are rewarded.

b) Some individuals are more conscious about issues of equity than other

individuals.

c) Some individuals beloved on long term reward than short-term or temporary

rewards.

37
 5. Theory of Expectancy by Vroom

This theory relies on the theme of equity theory but this theory used the

equation of Motivation = Expectancy * Instrumentality * Valence (M = E*I*V).

Here Motivation (M) means in the given situation the amount of

encouragement; Expectancy (E) means the perception about individual’s result and

performance; Instrumentality (I) related with quality of individual’s performance and

making decision for reward or punishment and Valence (V) related with the amount

of punishment and reward. If the amount of punishment and reward increased, then

motivation will be high.

6. Theory of Psycho-Analytic by Sigmund Freud

This is most vital and famous theory of motivation that elaborated behavior of

human beings with three parts of mind as like id, ego and superego. According to this

theory interaction among id, ego and superego displayed the human behavior.

Id related to unconscious of mind in which energy linked with satisfaction and

pleasure. Id showed basic and internal needs of personality. The motives of id are

hunger motive, thirst motive, air motive, sleep motive, relief from pain, sexual

desires, maternal motive, comfort motive, release unnecessary wastes from body just

as stool, urine and sweat and protection from storm, rain, cold, heat, fire and danger

from wild beasts.

The ego works with the principles of reality and also plays an important part to

balancing the id or superego motives. The motives of ego are love motive,

independence motive, achievement motive, affection motive, social approval motive,

power motive, social status motive, completion motive, exploration and curiosity

38
 The super ego works with the principle of morality through high thinking and

higher socially acceptable ways. Self-respect, self-actualization, sense of right and

wrong and judging acceptable behavior are the basic motives of super ego.

7. Cognitivism Goal Oriented Theory

The orientation of goals also increased motivation of students. If the students

have not clarity of goals, then they will not be motivated to learn anything. There will

be neither internal nor external motivation in them. Similarly, if the teachers are also

not clear about their teaching goals then they will not motivate the students and not

accomplished the specific tasks.

8. Theory of Drive Reduction Theory by Hull

According to this theory biological and physiological needs increased motivation.

The Primary or biological needs are hunger needs, thirst needs, air needs, sleep needs,

relief from pain, sexual desires, maternal needs, comfort needs, release unnecessary

wastes from body just as stool, urine and sweat and protection from storm, rain, cold,

heat, fire and danger from wild beasts. Physiological needs are independence,

achievement, affection, social approval, power, social status, exploration and

curiosity.

9. Theory of Self-Actualization or Hierarchy of Needs by Maslow

In this theory Maslow arranged the Needs from lowest level to highest level

according to human development and personality.

1. Physiological Needs which is includes food, heat, water, air, breathing, base

salary, excretion, sex, homeostasis and sleep.

2. Safety Needs which is includes property, freedom of war, health, job security,

family, health insurance, resources, morality, employment, security of body.

39
 3. Love and belonging Needs which is includes sexual intimacy, family,

coworkers, club’s teams, supervisors, friendship and subordinates.

4. Esteem Needs which is includes recognition, confidence, high status,

responsibilities, self-esteem, community, respect, achievement and respect by

others

5. Self-actualization Needs which is includes education, creativity, religion,

morality, hobbies, personal growth, spontaneity, lack of prejudice, problem

solving and acceptance of facts.

10. Theory of Instinct by McDougall

William James is founder of this theory. According to him, “The human mind

has certain innate or inherited tendencies which are the essential springs or motive

powers of all thought and action”. McDougall put forward a list of 14 instincts and

attached 14 emotions with them. This theory was very popular in Britain with Nunn,

Burt and Ross. However, American psychologists do not find any weight in this

theory.

2.18 Cooperative Learning Related Researches

Cooperative learning related researches divided into two categories in this

study as like Arts category and science category.

2.18.1 Cooperative learning and Arts category

A. Cooperative Learning with Motivation and Achievement in English

By using STAD and Group investigation (GI) method of cooperative learning

Jalilifar (2010) examined the effect on student’s achievement in English reading

comprehension when English used as a foreign language. This was an experimental

study in which one control and two experimental groups were constructed. Control

group perceived traditional method and one experimental group received STAD

40
method and second experimental group received Group Investigation (GI) method of

cooperative learning. STAD method of cooperative learning showed significance

positive results in EFL reading comprehension than other two methods.

The cooperative learning impact on speaking proficiency of learners in

English language was examined by Sobhani & Talebi (2012). Forty (40) students

including male and female were divided into control and experimental group in this

study. To measure speaking proficiency of learners an interview conducted at the end

of session. The conclusion of this study proved that the students of experimental

group increased their speaking proficiency towards English language than control

group with the strong effect of cooperative learning.

B. Cooperative Learning with Motivation and Achievement in Social

Studies

The effect of cooperative learning on student’s achievement in social studies

of 7th class was investigated by Kosar (2003). Forty (40) students were taken as a

sample for the period of two weeks. Pretest and posttest was conducted respectively

for control and experimental group. Findings and results of this study showed the

significant effect of cooperative learning on student’s achievement in social studies.

In the Junior Secondary School, the tree strategies of teaching as like problem

solving, conventional and cooperative learning effect on achievement of students in

social studies examined by Adeyemi (2008). One hundred and fifty-six (156) students

with eighty (80) Boys and seventy (70) Girls selected by using stratified cluster

sampling technique as a sample of this study. One control group with conventional

lecture method, one experimental group with problem solving strategy and one

experimental group with cooperative learning strategy constructed for the period of

four weeks. By using randomized quasi experimental and pre-test posttest control

41
group design one control and two experimental groups were treated for three periods

daily of four weeks in which one period was thirty-five (35) minutes. Findings and

results of this study proved that the cooperative learning techniques was best than

conventional and problem solving strategies.

This experimental study was conducted by Mahmood & Parveen (2011) to

explore the effect of cooperative learning on achievement of 8th class students in the

subject of social studies. On the basis of students’ result showed in social studies

through matched pair technique thirty-five (35) students were considered as sample in

which seventeen (170) students were taken for control group and eighteen (18)

students were taken in experimental group. Pretest and posttest conducted

respectively with the difference of fifteen (15) days. Results of this study proved that

cooperative learning have great effect on students’ achievement in social studies than

traditional method of teaching.

The effect of cooperative learning was explored by Coppola (2007) on English

as Second Language (ESL) in the classroom of social studies. Thirty-seven (37)

students were taken as sample of this study from two different classes of Social

students (world history) in which fifteen (15) were boys and twenty-two (22) were

girls. Nineteen (19) students were taken from class one and eighteen (18) students

were taken from class second. Survey tool was used for pre intervention and post

intervention surveys. Data of post intervention survey was clearly showed that

cooperative learning increased the students’ motivation towards group working and

also increased their academic achievements.

42
 C. Cooperative Learning with Motivation and Achievement in

Engineering

In the field of engineering Rocio, Angeles & Santiago, (2011) explore the

effect of jigsaw method of cooperative learning. They proved with the help of their

findings and results positive effect of cooperative learning towards active involvement

of individuals in learning process.

D. Cooperative Learning with Motivation and Achievement in

Economics and Statistics

Cooperative learning related attitude of students investigated by Kiran,

Paeveen, Akhtar, Rashid & Satti (2012) in the field of economics and statistics at Arid

Agriculture University Rawalpindi. Sixty-six (66) students were selected as a sample

of the study. To explore the cooperative learning related attitude of students a Likert

type questionnaire scale was developed. Findings and results of this study showed the

significant effect of cooperative learning on students in both group i.e. economics and

statics group.

E. Cooperative Learning with Motivation and Achievement in

Agriculture

The study to elaborate the cooperative learning effect on the achievement of

students in the field of agriculture and social skills attainments was conducted by

Waiganjo (2006). This study was used the quasi-experimental design of research in

which one hundred and fifty-four (154) students were taken as a sample from four

randomly selected schools. Seventy-eight (78) students from two schools were

selected as control group and seventy-six (76) students were taken from other two

schools as experimental group trough quasi-experimental design for the period of four

weeks. Social skill questionnaire (SSQ) and Agriculture Achievement Test (AAT)

43
was used to collect data for applying t-test. Results of this study proved that students

improved their academic achievements in the field of agriculture through cooperative

learning environment and also increased their social skills.

F. Cooperative Learning with Motivation and Achievement at Primary

Level

Vaughan (2000) explores the cooperative learning effect in attitude and

achievement of five class students in mathematics. This experimental study conducted

in the country of Bermuda. According to pretest and posttest results study was showed

the positive result of cooperative learning on attitude and achievement of five class

students in mathematics.

In Nigeria a quasi-experimental design research was conducted by Wola

(2008) in which he found the cooperative learning effect on academic achievement of

3rd class students in mathematics. Four hundred (400) students by random sampling

selected as a sample of the study. Findings and results of this study showed the

significant effect of cooperative learning on academic achievement of 3rd class

students in mathematics

Sheikhi Fini, Jamri & Zainalipoor (2012) explored the cooperative learning

effect on 2nd grade students’ achievement of middle school in which one hundred and

fifty-three (153) students of 2nd grade was taken from two different schools as a

sample of study. Students were divided into two groups as control and experimental

groups. Where control group received traditional method of learning and Jigsaw II

technique of cooperative learning was used for experimental group. Teacher made test

was used to conduct pre and posttest and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was used

to analyze data. Findings of this study provide positive results for cooperative

44
learning in which students increase their academic achievements by the use of Jigsaw

II technique.

The study about the effect of cooperative learning on students’ achievements

was conducted by Acosta & Marcela (2012) at Primary level. Quasi experimental

design of research was used in this experimental study. Results of this study proved

that cooperative learning have great effect on students’ academic achievement in

Science and Mathematics than traditional method of teaching and also have positive

effect on training of teachers for using cooperative learning methods to achieve

academic goals of primary students.

G. Cooperative Learning with Motivation and Achievement in

Attachment with Peers

An experimental study conducted by Pihie, Yaccob, Kadir, Laun, Tarmizi &

Elias (2005) to investigate the effect of cooperative learning in students’ attachment

with their peers. Post-test and quasi experimental design was used in this

experimental study. Two hundred and thirteen (213) students were taken from

different nine (9) classes in which eighty (80) Boys and one hundred and thirty-three

(133) Girls with their ages Sixteen to twenty (16-20) years considered as a sample of

this study. Four classes with ninety (90) students were taken for control group and

five (05) classes with one hundred and twenty (120) students were taken for

experimental group out of nine (9) classes. Students Teams Achievement Divisions

(STAD) method of cooperative learning used for experimental group and traditional

method of learning used for control group for the period of eight weeks. According to

findings and results no significant differences found between control and

experimental group rather than some students was make societal group or association

from peer groups in the situation of cooperative learning.

45
 The effect of cooperative model on students’ performance and mastery goals

explore by Pandya (2011) by using fractional and Quasi-experimental designs. One

hundred and fifty-three (153) students were taken as sample from 9th class. Students

were divided into two groups as like control and experimental groups whereas control

group received traditional method of learning and experimental group taught by

cooperative model of Think-Pair share and Jigsaw. ANOVA and ANCOVA tests

were used to analyze data. Findings of this experimental study showed the positive

effect of cooperative learning models on students’ performance and mastery goals

achievements.

H. Cooperative Learning with Motivation and Achievement for In-

Service Teachers Training Courses

A study conducted by Gokmen (2009) in which he investigated the

cooperative learning effect on in-service teachers training course reactions and

outcomes. Two different programs of training designed in which ninety-two (92)

subjects taken that were randomly assigned as a sample of this study. To check the

training reactions and learning outcomes of subjects one program designed for

individualistic study and other program designed for cooperative learning for fifteen

hours of five days (three hours in each day). Same trainer and same content was used

to teach the both groups. Control and experimental groups were post-tested by

randomize post-test only comparison group design. Findings and results of this study

showed that subjects learned more by the use of cooperative learning method than

method of individualistic learning.

46
2.18.2 Cooperative Learning and Science Category

A. Cooperative Learning with Motivation and Achievement in

Basic/General Science

In higher secondary level the effect of cooperative learning on achievement of

students in science explored by Conwell (1988) in the area urban. Findings and

positive results proved that there was great effect of cooperative learning on the

achievement of students in science.

In the field of earth science Lazarowitz & Hertz (1994) found the positive and

significant results related to the cooperative learning effects on 11th grade students’

achievement.

An experimental study conducted by Arbab (2003) to explore the effect of

cooperative learning on student’s achievement in general science of 9th class students.

Sample was divided into two groups for two weeks. Pretest and posttest was

conducted respectively. Findings and results of this study showed the significant

effect of cooperative learning on student’s achievement in general science than

traditional methods of teaching.

The study conducted by Bukunola and Idowu (2012) in Nigerian junior

secondary school to explore the cooperative learning effect on academic achievements

of students in basic science. Quasi-experimental design was used in this experimental

study in which one hundred and twenty (120) students were taken as sample. Jigsaw

II and learning together method of cooperative learning was used for experimental

group whereas control group perceived conventional method of learning. Basic

Science Anxiety Scale (BSAS) and Achievement Test for Basic Science Students

(ATBSS) were used to collect data whereas to analyze data ANCOVA and

Descriptive statistic were used. Conclusion of this study showed the significant effect

47
by using Jigsaw II and learning together of cooperative learning on student’s

achievement in basic science rather than traditional methods of learning.

B. Cooperative Learning with Motivation and Achievement in Chemistry

The effect of cooperative learning on students’ perception, motivation and

achievement towards eleven (11th) class of chemistry was investigated by Shachar &

Fischer (2004) in which cooperative learning method of Group investigation was

used. Results of this study proved that low and middle achievers increased their

perception, motivation and achievement towards chemistry same as they decreased

their motivation.

The study explored the effect of cooperative learning on achievement of

students in Chemistry conducted by Simsek (2009) in which two groups as like

experimental and control group considered as sample. Findings of this study showed

positive results for cooperative learning strategy than individualistic learning.

The effect of cooperative learning on the anxiety of students towards

Chemistry was a Quasi-experimental design study conducted by Oludiple & Awokoy

(2010) at secondary level in which one hundred and twenty (120) students were taken

randomly as a sample. ANOVA was used to analyze data whereas Chemistry Anxiety

Scale (CAS) was used as an instrument in the study. The conclusion of this study

proved that cooperative learning reduced students’ anxiety towards Chemistry.

C. Cooperative Learning with Motivation and Achievement in Biology

The cooperative learning activities effect on students’ attitudes and

achievement in biology classes investigated by Armstrong, Chang & Brickman,

(2006). Two hundred and fifty students (250) were taken as a sample for this study.

Data was analyzed through analyses of variance (ANOVA). The conclusion of this

48
study proved that students increased their achievements and attitudes towards Biology

in cooperative learning than traditional approach of learning.

The cooperative learning effect on the achievement of students in the subject

of biology was an experimental study explored by Gitau (2007) in which Soloman-

four group design of quasi experimental design was used. Four (4) schools

purposively selected out of one hundred and forty (140) secondary schools as a

population and one hundred and sixty-five (165) students were selected randomly as a

sample of the study. Only one school considered as an experimental group and other

three schools were considered as control group. Students Attitude Questionnaire

(SAQ) and Biology Achievement Test (BAT) was used as an instruments whereas

experimental group received approach of cooperative learning and control group

taught by traditional method of learning. Pre-test conducted only for true control

group named as I (CI) and experimental group named as E. Pre-test conducted was

not conducted for control group 2 (C2) and control group 3 (C3) but all four groups

taught by same course for the period of five (5) weeks. Post-test was conducted for all

the groups at the end and data was analyzed through analyses of variance (ANOVA)

and t-test. The conclusion of this study proved that experimental group increased their

achievements towards Biology rather than other three (3) groups with traditional

approach of learning.

Scifart, Judith, Dilt and Temple (2009) analyzed the cooperative learning

effect in the Laboratory of Microbiology. A survey was conducted to explore the

students’ comfort level of Laboratory experience. Report of survey showed that high

Laboratory experiences of students’ comfort level in cooperative learning situation

than traditional approach.

49
 D. Cooperative Learning with Motivation and Achievement in Physics

This was a quasi-experimental design study investigated by Hanze & Berger

(2007) to explore the cooperative learning effect on 12th grade students of physics in

which Jigsaw method of cooperative learning was used. One hundred and thirty-seven

(137) students were taken from 12th grade physics classes as a sample of the study.

Students were divided into two groups control group with traditional method of

learning and experimental group with jigsaw method of cooperative learning. Finding

and results of this study proved that strong and positive cooperative learning effect on

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation toward physics but failed to provide positive Jigsaw

puzzles effect on students’ academic achievement.

E. Cooperative Learning with Motivation and Achievement in

Mathematics

In this experimental study Ozsoy and Yildis (2004) explore the cooperative

learning effect with the use of learning together technique on achievement of students

in mathematics. Seventy (70) students of class 7th were divided into control and

experimental study in which pre-test and posttest design was used. Control group

received traditional method of teaching and experimental group received learning

together technique of cooperative learning for the period of thirty-five (35) days.

Results of this study proved the significant difference between the learning of control

and experimental groups.

An experimental study conducted by Zlotnik (2012) in which forty-nine (49)

students were taken as sample to find the cooperative learning effect on 8th grade

students in mathematics. Students were divided into two groups in which twenty-four

(24) students were taken in experimental group and twenty-five (25) students taken in

control group. Pretest and posttest was developed and conducted to collect data.

50
Results of this study proved the positive effect on attitude and motivation of students

in mathematics.

The effect of cooperative learning was investigated by Tran & Lewis (2012)

on students’ knowledge and their achievement in mathematics in which 80 students

were taken as a sample of the study for the period of six weeks. Forty (40) students

were taken in control group and forty (40) students were taken in experimental group.

Jigsaw method of cooperative learning applied on the experimental group whereas

traditional method of teaching used for control group. One-way ANOVA and

ANCOVA were used to analyze the mean of pretest and posttest achievements of

groups. The conclusion of this study proved that experimental group increased their

achievements towards mathematics with the strong effect of jigsaw method of

cooperative learning than traditional approach of learning.

The cooperative learning effect on attitude, classroom behaviors and academic

achievement of students in mathematics was investigated by Flynn (2013). Findings

and results of this study proved the significant effect of cooperative learning on

attitude, classroom behaviors and academic achievement of students in mathematics.

This quasi-experimental design study was investigated by Aziz (2010) in

which he compared the conventional and cooperative learning techniques effect on

secondary class achievement of students in mathematics. Control and experimental

groups were made for fifteen (15) weeks. The conclusion of this study proved that

experimental group increased their achievements towards mathematics with the strong

effect of cooperative learning than traditional approach of learning.

51
2.19 Summary of the Literature Review

Cooperative learning is very old idea but Cooperative learning being used in

education department in this current age for its affirmative conclusion. In cooperative

learning students work in collaborative way to complete and shared common aims of

learning (Johnson & Johnson, 2008).

Cooperative learning techniques are most beneficial and effective for distinct

kinds of students like high, Medium and low performers in science. Some students

learn less as low motivated and some students learn high as high motivated but

cooperative learning also enhance motivation toward science learning and also

enhance achievement of Medium and low achievers (Ironsmith & Eppler, 2007).

The roots of cooperative learning elaborated by Slavin (1996); Jhonson &

Jhonson (1999) like social interdependence, cognitive, motivational and cognitive

elaboration perspectives of cooperative learning for supporting its strength and scope

and increased the motivation and achievement of students.

The five basic elements of cooperative learning discussed by Brown & Paker

(2009); Johnson & Johnson (1994a & 1994b) like positive interdependence in

cooperative learning, Individual accountability in learning process, Face-to-face

Interaction among students, Interpersonal abilities of students, Group Processing in

learning.

Formal techniques of cooperative learning named as Jigsaw, Cooperative

Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC), Cooperative Script Learning Method,

Learning Together, Group Investigation, Student Teams Achievement Division

(STAD), Team Assisted Individualization (TAI), Teams Games Tournament (TGT)

And Discussion Group.

52
 Informal techniques of cooperative learning named as Circle the Sage, Drill

Review Pairs, Laboratory and Projects, Spontaneous Group Discussion, Numbered

Heads Together, Team Pair Solo, Three Minutes Review, Three Step Interview,

Group of Four, and Think-Pair-Share.

Ninety-nine (99) studies interviewed by Slavin (1995) in which different

techniques were used by many scholars. Slavin (1995) found 63% studies with the

positive results of cooperative learning and only 5% in the favor of other techniques

as like traditional techniques. Following researchers describes positive results in their

studies for cooperative learning.

In arts subjects Acosta & Marcela (2012); Arbab (2003); Coppola (2007);

Kadir (2005); Kosar (2003); Pandya (2011); Satti (2012); Servetti (2010); Sheiki

(2012); Jalilifar (2010); Norman (2005); Bibi (2002); Ghina (2008); Khan (2011);

Ghorbani (2012) showed positive results in their researches.

In science subjects Armstrong, change and Brick (2007); Bol & Nunnery

(1997); Chang & Brickman (2006); Chin & Daud (2010); Conwell (1988); Maxe

(2012); Wola (2008); Lazarowitz & Herts (1994); Hanze (2007); Masood (2012);

Okebukula & Ogunmigi (1984); Ajaja (2010); Shachar & Ficher (2004); Simsek

(2009); Tran (2012); Vanghan (2000) describes positive results in their researches.

Motivation plays a vital part in learning procedure and also linked with

behavioral attitude, internal interest and upgradation of ideas in science (Abell and

Lederman, 2007). There are many researchers like Akbas and Kaan (2007); Altun

(2009); Azizoğlu & Çetin (2009); Bassili (2008); Bolat (2007); Çakmak et al. (2008);

Cavas (2011); Davis-Kean (2005); Debacker & Nelson (2001); Boxer & Huesmann

(2009); Gagne & Deci (2005); Güvercin, Tekkaya and Sungur (2010); Hofstein &

Lunetta (2003); Karaarslan and Sungur (2011); Lee & Brophy (1996); Naaman

53
(2011); Ng & Gunstone (2002); Patrick, Kpanghan & Chibueze (2007); Tekinarslan

(2009); Tuan, Chin & Sheh (2005); Wang & Reeves (2007); Yılmaz & Çavaş (2007)

found in motivation towards learning of science with important results.

54
 Chapter 3

Procedure and Methodology of the Study

The purpose of this research was to elaborate the effect of cooperative learning

on student’s motivation and achievement in science. Three factors were used in this

research; Cooperative learning was an independent factor and dependent factors were

motivation and achievement. This research remained for 8 weeks from April, 1st,

2016 to May, 31, 2016.

3.1 Design of the Research

In this study matched-pair method was used to contrast the control and

experimental variety. Students Team Achievement Division (STAD) technique of

cooperative learning was exerted on the experimental group while traditional

technique of teaching was used for control group. Pretest and posttest were conducted

respectively. As well as Students’ Motivation toward Science Learning (SMTSL)

scale was used to elaborate motivation. The symbolic statement of this plan is

designated as:

ROXO

R O X2 O (Gay, 1992, p.365).

Table 3.1
Research design and procedure
Group Pre-test O Treatment X Posttest O

Control Science Achievement Test No Science Achievement

Test
Students’ Motivation No Students’ Motivation
Toward Science Learning Toward Science
Learning
Experimental Science Achievement Test Yes Science Achievement
Test
Students’ Motivation Yes Students’ Motivation
Toward Science Learning Toward Science
Learning

55
3.2 Sampling of the Study

Sixty (60) students in 8th class for the period (2016-17) were chosen in Govt.

High School Talwandi as a sample of the research. Matched-pair method was used to

distribute the students in control and experimental groups. Students were distributed

in high, average and low achievers on the basis of achievement test results.

Table 3.2
Pair matching of students in experimental and control groups

Students Students in experimental group Students in control group

High achievers 6 6

Average Achievers 18 18

Low Achievers 6 6

Total 30 30

Table 3.1 describes that experimental and control group were equally

distributed into thirty (30) students each with the help of matched pair method. Every

group had equivalent strength of students with six (06) high, eighteen (18) average

and six (06) low achievers. Experimental & Control group were equally constructed

in groups to elaborated the perfect and exact effect of the study.

Table 3.3
Division of experimental group
Sr. No. Sub groups No. of students

1 High Achievers 1

2 Average 3

3 Low Achievers 1

Total 5

56
 With the reference of table 3.2 the experimental group was distributed into six

(6) sub groups in which five (5) members in every sub group was considered with one

(01) high, three (03) average and one (01) low achievers.

3.3 Research Instruments

Pretest and post test were conducted respectively by using teacher made test

on science. Twenty (20) items with multiple choice questions (MCQs) and twelve

(12) short questions were included in this test. Marks of MCQs items were forty (40)

and marks of short questions were sixty (60), so total marks of this test were one

hundred (100). Students’ Motivation toward Science Learning (SMTSL) scale

developed by Tuan et al. (2005) was used to explore the student’s motivation toward

science. Thirty-five (35) statements were included in SMTSL with covering six sub

scales. The detailed information about motivation scale and its sub scales with

reliability coefficient values are as below.

Table 3.4
Motivation scale, sub scales and its reliability coefficient values.
Name of Reliability
No. Descriptions of scale statements
Scale Coefficient

1 SMTSL Students’ motivation toward 35 0.89

science learning

2 Self-efficacy This sub scale measured 7 0.78

student’s own capacity and

beliefs about science

learning tasks.

3 Active It measured student’s active 8 0.84

Learning participation in learning of

Strategies science concepts through

57
 multiple strategies.

4 Science This sub scale measured 5 0.66

Learning student’s learning values,

Value problem solving

competencies, thinking and

discovering competencies in

science.

5 Performance It measured student’s 4 0.79

Goal competition and

performance goals with

other students.

6 Achievement This sub scale measured 5 0.78

Goal student’s feelings of

satisfaction about their

competencies and

achievement goals.

7 Learning It measured influence of 6 0.69

environment learning environment,

Stimulation. teaching methodology,

pupil to pupil interaction

and role of curriculum

during science learning

motivation.

Tuan et al. (2005: 646)

58
3.4 Reliability and Validity of Instruments:

Split half method was used to make sure the reliability of test in Government

High School Talwandi. Split-half method was used to measure the internal

consistency of any test like questionnaires and psychometric tests. It also measured all

parts of test which is divided equally. For this sake, one hundred (100) students were

selected from the 8th class. To check the reliability of test Spearman–Brown prophecy

formula was used. The calculated high coefficient value as 0.86 showed high

reliability of the whole test. This test was checked and finalized after the

modification, refinement and judgment of the board of five judges.

Following steps were exercised in Split half technique

1) Test was constructed, administered to the concerned group of students and

marked

2) Split / divided the test in two halves with respect to odd and even serial

number of test items

3) Added up the score of each half (total of odd serial number, 1,3,5,7,9… test

items separately and total of even serial 2,4,6, 8… number test items

separately)

4) Applied the formula of correlation coefficient to find the co relation between

the two scores (odd and even).

Coefficient of co relation = ∑ XY – (∑ X) (∑Y) / N

[ ∑ X- (∑ X) / N] [∑ Y- (∑ Y) / N]

For example, Tests (theory and practical each of 10 marks) administered to a

group of 10 students (N). For which “X” is the score for theory test and “Y” is the

score for practical test.

59
Table 3.5
Calculating the value of co- relation
Roll No. Name X Y X Y XY

1 A 5 4 25 16 20

2 B 5 5 25 25 25

3 C 7 4 49 16 28

4 D 6 5 36 25 30

5 E 4 3 16 9 12

6 F 8 7 64 49 56

7 G 3 4 9 16 12

8 H 6 5 36 25 30

9 I 5 4 25 16 20

10 J 7 6 49 36 42

N=10 N=10 ∑ X= 56 ∑Y= 47 ∑X= 334 ∑Y= 233 ∑XY= 275

By apply the co- relation formula

Coefficient of co relation = ∑ XY – (∑ X) (∑Y) / N

[∑ X- (∑ X) / N] [∑ Y- (∑ Y) / N]

= 275 – ( 56) (47) / 10 = 275 – 263.2 = 11.8 = + 1.42

[334-3136 / 10] [233- 2209/ 10] 20.4 – 12.1 8.3

This is the half reliability of the test because half test score is compared with the

half score.

60
 5) In order to estimate the complete reliability of the test Spearman- Brown

formula is applied, which is as follows

r (complete) = 2 × r (half)

1 + r (half)

For- example: If the half test reliability is 0.5, the complete test reliability will be

r (complete) = 2 × r (half) = 2 × 0.71= 0.83

1 + r (half) 1 + 0.71

Students’ Motivation toward Science Learning (SMTSL) scale produced by

Tuan et al. (2005) was used for data collection and to elaborate student’s motivation

toward science. To use the SMTSL in the research approval was taken by the higher

authority. This scale was also translated in Urdu and used in different languages. The

translated Urdu version was used by Hussain (2013) on a sample of two hundred and

eighty-seven (287) students of 8th class for measuring student’s motivation in learning

of science. It was used and administered by Yildiz & Akin (2011) in Turkish language

on a sample of six hundred and fifty none (659) students of 6th, 7th, and 8th class to

measured students’ motivation toward science.

3.5 Procedure of the Study

To elaborate the effect of cooperative learning on student’s motivation and

achievement in science an experimental research was conducted in Govt. High School

Talwandi. By using Purposive sampling 8th class of Govt. High School Talwandi was

selected as a sample.

Purposive sampling is a subjective, selective and judgmental technique of non-

probability sampling. It is used when a researcher selects certain sample within the

population for specific research. By the availability of different kind of techniques in

purposive sampling it is very helpful for researchers.

61
 Permission taken by the head of Govt. High School Talwandi for the

experiment on students of 8th class. In the session of (2016-17) in Govt. High School

Talwandi one hundred and five (105) students of 8th grade enrolled, but N= 60

students were selected as a sample of the study. Matched-pair technique was used to

contrast the control and experimental group. Thirty (30) students were taken in

control group and thirty (30) students were taken in experimental group. Students

Team Achievement Division (STAD) technique of cooperative learning was exerted

on the experimental group while conventional technique of teaching was used for

control group. Both groups were educated by the same teacher for the period of thirty-

five (35) minutes on a daily basis for 8 weeks from April, 1st, 2016 to May, 31, 2016.

Pretest and posttest were taken respectively.

Students’ scores were set in descending order then a couple of two high scores

were made equally and next two high scores couple and so on. Like this thirty (30)

couples were made with same quality. Experimental group was divided into six (6)

sub groups; every sub group consisted of five (5) members with one (01) high, three

(03) average and one (01) low achievers. Two well furnished, well lighted and well-

ventilated classrooms were chosen for both groups. Both groups were taught in

separate classrooms.

Seats were arranged in the circle for every sub group of experimental group.

The use of cooperative learning method, class room regulations, schedule of STAD

actions and seating positions between the students was practiced before the treatment

of experimental group.

A lesson plan was prepared for the first day lecture. For delivering lesson,

lecture method was used on experimental group. Work sheets related with the first

day lesson material were divided to every subgroup of experimental group on second

62
day. Subgroups were solved worksheets together. Teacher provides facilitation if

required during students working in their sub groups. Students were informed by

teacher for the quiz competition on third day. Students were seated separately in the

rows instead of circle arrangement in the third day. Thirty (30) multiple choice

questions containing thirty (30) total marks were included in the quiz competition.

The test scores after completion competition of every individual was marked and

arranged according to their groups. Appreciation was given to high scoring groups as

superb group, bright group and shine group.

The same content as experimental group was delivered to the control group in

which teacher played a traditional role of teaching. Lecture method used for control

group. Quiz competition and groups were not arranged for control group. But similar

content delivered to both groups in similar days.

Control and experimental groups were separated in term of teaching process,

activities and also ensure that nobody could mix both groups with one another. At the

end of period work sheets were collected regularly, especially both groups were also

advised by teacher to not discuss anything to other group.

Students’ Motivation toward Science Learning (SMTSL) scale developed by

Tuan et al. (2005) was used for data collection and to explore student’s motivation

toward science. To use the SMTSL in the study permission was taken by the principal

author. Thirty-five (35) statements included in SMTSL with covering six (06) sub

scales as like Self-efficacy (This sub scale measured student’s own capacity and

beliefs about science learning tasks), Active Learning Strategies (It measured

student’s active participation in learning of science concepts through multiple

strategies), Science Learning Value. (This sub scale measured student’s learning

values, problem solving competencies, thinking and discovering competencies in

63
science), Performance Goal (It measured student’s competition and performance goals

with other students), Achievement Goal (This sub scale measured student’s feelings

of satisfaction about their competencies and achievement goals) and Learning

environment Stimulation (It measured influence of learning environment, teaching

methodology, pupil to pupil interaction and role of curriculum during science learning

motivation). The design and procedure of the study showed in the following table.

3.6 Data Analysis

A pretest was conducted earlier than treatment of the study and at the end of

treatment posttest was conducted to find achievements of students. As well as

Students’ Motivation toward Science Learning (SMTSL) scale developed by Tuan et

al. (2005) was used for data collection and to explore student’s motivation toward

science. Following steps were used to examine the data:

SPSS-17 was used to analyze data and Paired sample t-test was used to

compare the data between control and experimental group. Paired sample t-test is

used when two samples from two populations taken by matched pair technique and

correlated statistically.

64
 Chapter 4
Analysis and Interpretation of Data

It was an experimental study to explore the effect of cooperative learning on

students’ motivation and achievement in science at elementary level. Thirty (30)

students were taken in control and experimental group each through Matched-pair

technique. Both groups were educated with Students Team Achievement Division

(STAD) method of cooperative learning for 8 weeks from April, 1st, 2016 to May, 31,

2016. Pretest and posttest were conducted respectively by using teacher made test on

science. As well as Students’ Motivation toward Science Learning (SMTSL) scale,

developed by Tuan et al. (2005) was used to explore student’s motivation toward

science. The scale consisted of thirty-five (35) statements.SPSS-17 were used to

analyze data and Paired sample t-test a type of t-test was used to compare the data

between control and experimental group.

According to Cohen (1988) effect sizes were calculated and interpreted along

with t-tests scores. The Cohen’s formula is described as under

Effect Size= Difference in Means

Average Standard Deviation (SD)

According to Cohen (1988), effect size is small when d= 0.2, medium when

d= 0.5 and large when d= 0.8, it meant that the Means of two groups have no

difference with 0.2 value, means of two groups have medium difference with 0.5

value and means of two groups have significant difference with 0.8 value.

65
Table 4.1
Pretest motivation scores difference between the control and experimental group.
Group N Mean SD t p

Control 30 105.33 15.089 -1.181 0.247

Experimental 30 105.87 15.442

p > 0.05

Table 4.1 shows that there was no significant difference in pretest motivation

scores of control group (M=105.33, SD=15.089) and experimental group (M=105.87,

SD=15.442) at p > 0.05 which shows that students’ motivation in control group is

same as compared to students’ motivation in experimental group.

Table 4.2
Pretest achievement scores difference between the control and experimental group.
Group N Mean SD t p

Control 30 18.60 6.600 1.439 0.161

Experimental 30 18.47 6.689

p > 0.05

Table 4.2 indicates that there was no significant difference in the pre-test

scores of achievement between control group (M=18.60, SD=6.600) and experimental

group (M=18.47, SD=6.689) at p > 0.05 which shows that students’ achievement

scores in experimental group is same as compared to students’ achievement scores in

control group.

Table 4.3
Posttest motivation scores difference between the control and experimental group.
Group N Mean SD t P Effect Size

Control 30 115.17 12.545 -2.949 0.006 0.5720

Experimental 30 124.8 21.123

p <0.05

Table 4.3 shows that there was a significant difference in the posttest

motivation scores of control group (M=115.17, SD=12.545) and experimental group

66
(M=124.8, SD=21.123) at p < 0.05 with effect size 0.5720. It means that cooperative

learning method increases motivation of students than traditional learning method.

Table 4.4
Posttest achievement scores difference between the control and experimental group.
Group N Mean SD t p Effect Size

Control 30 21.17 7.525 -13.310 0.000 1.2089

Experimental 30 31.57 9.680

p < 0.05

Table 4.4 indicates that the posttest scores of achievement have a significant

difference between control group (M=21.17, SD=7.525) and experimental group

(M=31.57, SD=9.680) at p < 0.05 with effect size 1.2089. It means that cooperative

learning method increases achievement of students than traditional learning method.

Table 4.5
Pretest and Posttest motivation scores difference of control group.
Control Group N Mean SD t p Effect Size

Pretest 30 105.33 15.089 -4.514 0.000 0.7122

Posttest 30 115.17 12.545

p < 0.05

Table 4.5 shows that there was a significant difference in pretest motivation

scores with (M=105.33, SD=15.089) and posttest motivation scores with (M=115.17,

SD=12.545) of control group at p < 0.05 with effect size 0.7122 toward science. It

indicates that the posttest motivation scores of students were better than the pretest

motivation scores.

Table 4.6
Pretest and Posttest achievement scores difference of control group.

Control Group N Mean SD t p Effect Size

Pretest 30 18.60 6.600 -4.347 0.000 0.3639

Posttest 30 21.17 7.525

p < 0.05

67
 Table 4.6 shows that there was a significant difference between achievement

scores of control group in pretest (M=18.60, SD=6.600) and post-test (M=21.17,

SD=7.525) at p < 0.05 with effect size 0.3639 in science. It indicates that the

achievement scores of students in posttest were better than the achievement scores in

pretest.

Table 4.7
Pretest and Posttest motivation scores difference of experimental group.
Experimental Group N Mean SD t p Effect Size

Pretest 30 105.87 15.442 -3.678 0.001 1.0354

Posttest 30 124.8 21.123

p <0.05

Table 4.7 have result of paired sample t-test indicates that there was a

significant difference of motivation scores of experimental group in pretest motivation

score (M=105.87, SD=15.442) and posttest motivation score (M=124.8, SD=21.123)

at p < 0.05 with effect size 1.0354 toward science. It means that motivation scores of

students in posttest were better than the motivation scores in pre-test.

Table 4.8
Pretest and Posttest achievement scores difference of experimental group.

Experimental Group N Mean SD t p Effect Size

Pretest 30 18.47 6.689 -13.638 0.000 1.6006

Posttest 30 31.57 9.680

p <0.05

Table 4.8 have result of paired sample t-test indicates that there was a

significant difference of achievement scores in pretest (M=18.47, SD=6.689) and

posttest (M=31.57, SD=9.680) for experimental group at p < 0.05 with effect size

1.6006 in science. It means that the achievement score of students in posttest was

better than the achievement scores in pretest.

68
 Chapter 5

Summary, Findings, Conclusions, Discussion

& Recommendations
Summary

To study the impact of cooperative learning on student’s motivation and

achievement in science, an innovative research was organized in Govt. High School

Talwandi. In the session of (2016-17) Govt. High School Talwandi N= 60 students

were chosen as a sample of the research. Thirty (30) students were taken in control

and innovative group each through Matched-pair method. Innovative group was

separated into six (6) sub categories. Every sub category comprised of five (5)

members with one (01) high, three (03) average and one (01) low achiever. Students

Team Achievement Division (STAD) technique of cooperative learning was applied

on the innovative group while conventional technique of teaching was used for

control group. Both groups were educated for 8 weeks from April, 1st, 2016 to May,

31, 2016. Pretest and posttest were organized respectively by using teacher made test

on science. Split half method was used to make sure the reliability of test. For this

purpose, one hundred (100) students were selected from the 8th class. To check the

reliability of test Spearman–Brown prophecy formula was used. The calculated high

coefficient value as 0.86 describes high reliability of the whole test. This test was

checked and finalized after the modification, refinement and judgment of the board of

five judges.

Students’ Motivation toward Science Learning (SMTSL) scale developed by

Tuan et al. (2005) was used to elaborate student’s motivation toward science. The

scale had comprised of thirty-five (35) questions. SPSS-17 was used to analyze data

and Paired sample t-test was used to compare the data between control and

experimental group.

69
Findings

The Findings of Pretest and posttest of the research are as below

Pretest and Posttest Motivation of Control and Experimental Group

1. The analysis (paired sample t-test) of pretest motivation scores describes no

significant difference between control and experimental group (M=105.33,

M=105.87) regarding motivation towards science. It means that Students’

motivation in control group was same as compared to students’ motivation in

experimental group.

2. According to analysis (paired sample t-test) there was a significant difference

in the posttest motivation scores of control group (M=115.17) and

hypothetical group (M=124.8) with effect size 0.5720. It means that those

students who were taught through cooperative learning were more motivated

towards science than the students who were taught with conventional learning

method.

Pretest and Pos test achievement of control and experimental group

1. There was no important difference in pretest scores of achievements between

control and hypothetical group (M=18.60, M=18.47) in science. The analysis

of paired sample t-test showed that students’ achievement scores in

experimental group were same as compared to students’ achievement scores in

control group.

2. There was a important difference in posttest scores of achievement between

control and innovative group (M=21.17, M=31.57) in science with effect size

1.2098. It means that the cooperative learning methods describes better

performance of students than the students who were taught with conventional

learning technique.

70
Pretest and Posttest motivation and achievement of control group

1. According to analysis (paired sample t-test) there was a important difference

in pretest motivation scores with (M=105.33, SD=15.089) and posttest

motivation scores with (M=115.17, SD=12.545) of control group at p < 0.05

with effect size 0.7122. It shows a notable difference between students’ pretest

and posttest motivation scores.

2. The difference between achievement scores in science of control group in

pretest (M=18.60, SD=6.600) and post-test (M=21.17, SD=7.525) at p < 0.05

with effect size 0.3639 showed that the achievement scores of students in

posttest were better than the achievement scores in pretest. So according to

analysis of paired sample t-test and effect size there was a important difference

between students’ pretest scores and posttest scores of achievement.

Pretest and Posttest motivation and achievement of experimental group

1. Paired sample t-test analysis showed that there was a important difference of

motivation scores of innovative group in pretest (M=105.87, SD=15.442) and

posttest (M=124.8, SD=21.823) at p < 0.05 with large effect size 1.0354. It

means that motivation scores of students in posttest were better than the

motivation scores in pretest.

2. Paired sample t-test analysis describes a important difference of performance

scores in pretest (M=18.47, SD=6.689) and posttest (M=31.57, SD=9.680) for

hypothetical group at p < 0.05 with effect size 1.6006. It means that the

performance scores of students in posttest was better than the accomplishment

scores in pretest.

71
Conclusions

On the grounds of findings and statistical analysis results of the research

showed as: Control and experimental groups described no important difference in

pretest motivation and achievement scores. Students were more motivated and

displayed better performance by using STAD technique of cooperative learning than

conventional technique. The control group displayed better motivation and

achievement scores in posttest than the pretest scores with low effect size and the

hypothetical group displayed better in posttest motivation and achievement scores

than the pretest scores with high effect size.

Discussion

This research showed the effect of cooperative learning on students’

motivation and achievement in science. The study spreads cooperative learning

approach for science learning. It was useful and effective method for different kinds

of students as like high, average and low achievers. It increased motivation toward

science learning and also increased achievement of low achievers and average

students. This research may also useful for teachers, researchers, philosophers.

Previous studies about cooperative learning based on the development and use of

cooperative learning techniques to increase motivation and achievement in science

through STAD strategy. Slavin, (1995) found 63% studies with the positive findings

of cooperative learning and only 5% in the favor of other techniques as like

conventional techniques.

Iqbal (2004) managed a research with sample of sixty-four (64) to find out

effect of cooperative learning on achievement of students in mathematics for 10th

class with important high conclusions. Vaughan (2000) showed the effect of

cooperative learning on attitude and achievement of five class students in

72
mathematics with positive result. In the same way at higher secondary level the effect

of cooperative learning on achievement of students in science was displayed by

Conwell (1988) in the area urban with positive results. In the field of earth science

Lazarowitz & Hertz (1994) found the positive and important results related to the

cooperative learning effects on 11th grade students’ achievement. An experimental

study conducted by Arbab (2003) was managed to elaborate the effect of cooperative

learning on student’s achievement in general science of 9th class students with

important results. The effect of cooperative learning on students’ perception,

motivation and achievement towards eleven (11th) class of chemistry was inquired by

Shachar & Fischer (2004). Results of this research proved that low and middle

achievers increased their perception, motivation and achievement towards chemistry

same as they decreased their motivation. The cooperative learning activities effect on

students’ attitudes and achievement in biology classes investigated by Armstrong,

Chang & Brickman (2006). The conclusion of this study proved that students

increased their achievements and attitudes towards Biology in cooperative learning

than traditional approach of learning.

An innovative study with quasi experimental group design was managed by

Duguryil &, Wude (2013) to investigate the Students’ Achievement in Biology with

their Potentials and gender differences by using cooperative learning approaches.

Jigsaw and STAD approaches of Cooperative learning were used for one hundred and

eighty-eight (188) students which were distributed into control and experimental

groups. Biology Achievement Test (BAT) was used for pretest and posttest. Control

group was received conventional approach of learning while experimental group

treated with STAD and Jigsaw technique of cooperative learning. The findings and

results showed negative important difference in cooperative learning.

73
 The effect of cooperative learning on eight (8th) class of social studies was

elaborated an experimental research inquired by Mehmood & Parveen (2011). In this

experimental study through matched paired method thirty-five (35) students on the

basis of annual result were taken as a sample. Seventeen (17) students were taken in

control and eighteen (18) students were taken in experimental group. The findings and

results for social studies class showed no important difference in both conventional

and cooperative learning.

Recommendations

The researcher suggested some following recommendations after the

conclusions and findings of this study.

1. Education system should be based on cooperative learning settings in which

students interchange their ideas through personal involvement and activities.

2. Government of Pakistan should manage trainings for teachers to use

cooperative learning technique.

3. Cooperative strategies should be applied on all instructional subjects at all

levels in Pakistan due to its positive results.

4. Cooperative learning should be used as an elective approach in learning

process due to its benefits as like High positive interdependence, High

interaction, high quality and quantity of learning experiences and should be

used for positive enforcement, to increase motivation, built communication

skill and resolve conflict towards learning and instruction.

5. The role of teacher should be remained passive during cooperative instructions

and provide assistance when needed.

74
References
Abell, S. K., & Lederman, N. G. (2007). Handbook of research on science
education. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Abrami, P. C. Poulsen, C., & Chambers, B. (2004). Teacher motivation to

implement an educational innovation: Factors differentiating users and non-
users of cooperative learning. Educational psychology, 24(2), 201-216

Adams, D. M., and Hamm, M. (1994). New designs for teaching and learning. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Adams, M., & Hamm, M. (1990). Cooperative learning critical thinking and
collaboration across the curriculum. Spring field, IL: Thompson Publishers.

Alderman, K. (2008). Motivation for Achievement: Possibilities for teaching and

learning. New York: Rutledge.

Almadani, K., Reid, N. & Rodrigues, S. (2012). What examinations test. Problems
of Education in the 21st century, 1(1), 6-19.

Anderson, J. R., Greeno, J., Reder, L., & Simon, H. (2000). Perspectives on
learning, thinking, and activity. Educational Researcher, 29(4), 11–13.

Antil, L. R., Jenkins, J. R., Wayne, S. K., & Vadasy, P. F. (1998). Cooperative
learning: Prevalence, conceptualizations, and the relation between research
and practice. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 419–454.
doi:10.3102/00028312035003419

Aronson, E. et al. (1978). The Jigsaw Classroom. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.

Aronson, E., and Patnoe, S. (1997). The jigsaw classroom. New York; Addison-
Wesley Longmm

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

Bargh, J., Gollwitzer, P., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Trotschel, R. (2001). The
automated will: Nonconscious activation and the pursuit of behavioral goals.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1014–1027.

Bhatia, K. K. (1997). Educational Psychology, Vikas Publishing House (Pvt.Ltd),

New Delhi, India. p. 21.

Boekaerts, M., & Niemivirta, M. (2000). Self-regulated learning: Finding a balance

between learning goals and ego-protective goals. In M. Boekaerts, P. R.
Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation:Theory, research,
and applications (pp. 417–450). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Boekaerts, M., Pintrich, P. R., & Zeidner, M. (2000). Handbook of selfregulation.

San Diego, CA: Academic Press

75
Bouffard, T., & Couture, N.(2003). Motivational profile and academic achievement
among students enrolled in different schooling tracks. Educational Studies,
9(1), 19-38.

Bruner, J. (1981). Groups of four: Solving the mathematical problems. Learning by

doing (2), 46-51.

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in
undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.

Covington, M., & Dray, E. (2002). The developmental course of achievement

motivation: A need-based approach. In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.),
Development of achievement motivation (pp. 33–56). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.

Crocker, J., & Wolfe, C. (2001). Contingencies of self-worth. Psychological

Review, 108, 593–623.

Damon, W. (1984). Peer education: Untapped potential. Journal of Applied

Developmental psychology, 5, 331-343

Dansereau, D. F. (1988). Cooperative learning strategies. In C. E. Weinstein, E. T.

Goetz, & P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Learning and study strategies: Issues in
assessment, instruction,and evaluation (pp. 103-120). New York: Academic
Press.

Deutsch, M. (1949). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2,

129–152.

Deutsch, M. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In M. R. Jones

(Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 275–319). Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.

Dyson, B, Griffin, L. L., & Hastie, P. (2004). Sport Education, Tactical Games, and
Cooperative Learning: Theoretical and Pedagogical Considerations. Quest, 56,
226-240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00336297.2004.10491823

Eccles, J., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In W.

Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed.,
pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.

Foley, K., & O`Donnell, A., (2002). Cooperative learning and visual organizers:
Effects on solving mole problems in high school chemistry. Asia-

Ford, M. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and personal agency

beliefs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Gaith, G. (2003). Effects of learning together model of cooperative learning on

English as a foreign language: Reading achievement, academic self-esteem
and feeling of school alienation. Bilingual Research Journal, 27(3), 459

76
Grolnick, W., Gurland, S., Jacob, J., & Decourcey, W. (2002). The development of
self-determination in middle childhood and adolescence. In A. Wigfield & J.
Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 148–171). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A

critical issue for the 21st century. Review of EducationalResearch, 70, 151–
179.

Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. (2000). Motivational science: The nature and
functions of wanting. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Motivational
science: Social and personality perspectives (pp. 1–20). Philadelphia:
Psychology Press.

Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. (2000). Motivational science: The nature and
functions of wanting. In E. T. Higgins & A. Kruglanski (Eds.), Motivational
science: Social and personality perspectives (pp. 1–20). Philadelphia:
Psychology Press.

Hynd, C., Holschuh, J., & Nist, S. (2000). Learning complex scientific information:
Motivation theory and its relation to students’ perceptions. Reading and
Writing Quarterly, 16, 23-57.

Ironsmith, M. & Eppler, M.A. (2007). Mastery Learning Benefits Low-Aptitude

Students. Teaching of Psychology, 34 (1), 28-31.

Johnsin, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991a). Cooperative learning:

Increasing college faculty instruction productivity. Washington, D.C: The
George Washington University.

Johnsin, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991b). Active Learning:

Cooperation in college classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation And Competition: Theory

And Research. Interaction Book Company.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An Educational Psychology Success

Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational
Researcher, 38, 365-379.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An Educational Psychology Success

Story: Social Interdependence Theory and Cooperative Learning. Educational
Researcher, 38(5), 365-379. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09339057

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning:

Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. Washington, DC: George
WashingtonUniversity.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1991). Cooperative learning:

Increasing college faculty instructional productivity. Washington, DC: George
WashingtonUniversity.

77
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (1998, July/August). Cooperative
learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works? Change,
30(4), 26–35.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K.A. (1998). Cooperative learning
returns to college. Change, 50(4), 26-35

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning

methods: A meta-analysis. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Johnson, D., Johnson, R. (1975). Learning together and alone, cooperation,

competition, and individualization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall

Johnson, D.W, Johnson, R.T. (1994a) . An overview of cooperative learning. In

Thousand, J., Vila, A., & Nevin, A. (Eds). Creativity and collaborative
learning. Books Press, Baltimore.

Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1999). learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning (5th Ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Johnstone, A. H. (1997). Chemistry Teaching - Science or Alchemy? Journal of

Chemical Education, 74(3), 262-268.

Kagan, M., & Kagan, S. (1992). Advanced cooperative learning: Playing with
elements. San Juan Capistrano, CA: Kagan Cooperative Learning

Kagan, S. & Kagan, M. (2009). Kagan Cooperative Learning, San Clemente, CA:
Kagan Publishing.
Kagan, S. (1990). Cooperative learning resources for teachers. San Juan
Capistrano, CA: Resources for Teachers.

Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Clement, USA: Kagan Publishers.

Ke F & Grabowski B (2007). Gameplaying for math learning: co-operative or not?

British Journal of Educational Technology, 38(2), 249-259.

Kessler, C. (Ed.). (1992). Cooperative learning: A teacher’s resource book.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Kitayama, S. (2002). Culture and basic psychological processes—Toward a system

view of culture: Comments on Oyserman et al. (2002). PsychologicalBulletin,
128, 89–96.

Knight, G. P., & Bohlmeyer, E. M. (1990). Cooperative learning and achievement:

Methods for assessing causal mechanisms. In S. Sharan, (Ed.), Cooperative
learning: Theory and research (pp. 1-22). New York: Praeger Publishers.

Krapp, A. (2002). Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development:

Theoretical considerations from an ontogenetic perspective. Learningand
Instruction, 12, 383–409.

78
Mbajiorgu, N. & Reid, N. (2006). Factor Influencing Curriculum Development in
Chemistry, Higher Education Academy, Hull, ISBN 1- 903815-16-9.

McKeachie, W. J. (1978). Teaching tips: A guidebook for the beginning college

teacher. Lexington, MA: DC Heath.

Menges, R. J. and Weimer, M. (1996). Teaching on solid ground: Using

scholarship to improve practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

Miller, R., Leach, J., & Osborne. (2000). Improving Science Education: The
Contribution of Research. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Murphy, P.K. & Alexander, P.A. (2000). A motivated exploration of motivation

terminology. Contemporary Educational psychology, 25, 3-53.

Nichols, J., & Miller, R. (1994). Cooperative learning and student motivation.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 167 178.

Pacific Journal of Education, 22(1), 38 50.

Parker, R. (1994). Small Group Cooperative learning in the classroom. OSSC

Bulletin, 2-7, 27-30.

Parsons, R. D., Himson, S.L & Sardo-Brown, D. (2001) Educational Psychology,

Singapore: Wadsworth.

Pekrun, R. (1992). The impact of emotions on learning and achievement: Towards

a theory of cognitive/motivational mediators. Applied Psychology,41, 359–
376.

Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. (2002). Academic emotions in
students’ self-regulated learning and achievement: A program of qualitative
and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91–105.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000d). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In

M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbookof self-regulation
(pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory,research,

and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory,

research, and applications (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall.

Pintrich, P. R., & Zusho, A. (2002). The development of academic selfregulation:

The role of cognitive and motivational factors. In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles
(Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 249–284). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.

Reid, N. & Yang, M-J. (2002) The Solving of Problems in Chemistry: The More
Open-ended Prob-lems, Research in Science and Technological Education,
20(1), 83-98.

79
Reid, N. (1999) Towards an Application-Led Curriculum, Staff and Educational
Development Interna-tional, 3(1), 71-84.

Reid, N. (2000). The Presentation of Chemistry: Logically Driven or Applications

Led? Chemistry Education: Research and Practice, 1(3), 381-392.

Reid, N. (2006) Thoughts on Attitude Measurement, Research in Science and

Technological Education, 24(1), 3-27.

Reid, N. (2006) Thoughts on Attitude Measurement, Research in Science and

Technological Education, 24(1), 3-27.

Reid, N. (2009a) The Concept of Working Memory, Research in Science and

Technological Education, 27(2), 131-138.

Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting Early

Adolescents' Achievement and Peer Relationships: The Effects of
Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goal Structures. Psychological
Bulletin, 134, 223-246.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic
Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25 ,
54–67.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55, 68-78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The
search for optimal motivation and performance. San Diego, CA:Academic
Press.

Schultheiss, O. (2001). An information processing account of implicit motive

arousal. In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances inmotivation and
achievement: New directions in measures and methods (Vol. 12, pp. 1–41).
Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.

Sharan, S. (1999). Handbook of cooperative methods. Westport, Praeger.

Sharan, S. (Ed.). (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory and research. New York,
NY: Praeger.

Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative Learning for Academic and Social Gains: valued
pedagogy, problematic practice. European Journal of Education, 45,(2), 300-
313.

Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1989, December-1990, January). Group investigation

expands cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 17-19.

80
Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group
investigation. New York: Teachers College Press.

Sharan,S. (1999). Handbook of cooperative methods. Westport, CT:Praeger

Sherman, S. (1994). Cooperative learning and science. In S. Sharan (Ed.),

Handbook of cooperative learning methods. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Singhanayok, C., & Hooper, S. (1998). The effects of cooperative learning and
learner control on students' achievement, option selections, and attitudes.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 46(2), 17-36.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02299787

Skinner, E. A. (1996). A guide to constructs of control. Journal of Personalityand

Social Psychology, 71, 549–570.

Skinner, E., Zimmer-Gembeck, M., & Connell, J. (1998). Individual differences

and the development of perceived control. Monographs of theSociety for
Research in Child Development, 63(2–3, Serial No. 254).

Skyrabina, E. (2000). Students’ Attitudes to Learning Physics at School and

University Levels in Scot-land, PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow, Glasgow.

Slavin, R. E (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. (2nd Ed).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2),

pp. 315–342. doi:10.3102/00346543050002315

Slavin, R. E. (1988b, June). Student team learning: An overview and practical

guide. Washington, DC: National Education Association.

Slavin, R. E. (1991, February). Group rewards make group work work, response to
Kohn. Educational Leadership, 48(5), 89-91.

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practices. (2nd

Ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Slavin, R. E. (1996). Education for all: Contexts of learning. Lisse, The

Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Slavin, R. E. (2011). Instruction Based on Cooperative Learning. In R. E. Mayer &

P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction
(pp. 344-360). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Slavin, R. E. (2011). Instruction Based on Cooperative Learning. In R. E. Mayer &

P. A. Alexander (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Learning and Instruction
(pp. 344-360). New York: Taylor & Francis.

Slavin, R. E., Hurley, E. A., & Chamberlain, A. M. (2003). Cooperative learning

and achievement: theory and research. In Handbook of psychology:

81
 Educational psychology, Vol. 7 (pp. 177-198). New York, US: John Wiley &
Sons.

Slavin, R.E., (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we

know, what we need to know. Contemporary educational psychology, 21, 43-
69.

Stone, N. (2000). Exploring the relationship between calibration and selfregulated

learning. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 437–475.

Tuan, H., Chin, C., Tsai, C., & Cheng, S. (2005). Investigating the effectiveness of
Inquiry Instruction on the Motivation of Different Learning Styles Students.
International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education. 3: 541–566.

Volet, S., & Jarvela, S. (2001). Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical

advances and methodological implications. Amsterdam: ElsevierScience.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society (edited by M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S.

Seribnor and E. Souberman), Cambridge: USA, MA:Harvard University Press.

Wentzel, K. (2000). What is it that I’m trying to achieve? Classroom goals from a
content perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 105–115.

Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A

developmental perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49– 78.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A
theoretical analysis. Developmental Review, 12, 265–310.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2002a). Development of achievement motivation. San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. (2002b). The development of competence beliefs,

expectancies for success, and achievement values from childhood through
adolescence. In A. Wigfield & J. Eccles (Eds.), Developmentof achievement
motivation (pp. 91–120). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Wolters, C. (1998). Self-regulated learning and college students’ regulation of

motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 224–235.

Wyk, M. M. (2012). The Effects of the STAD-Cooperative Learning Method on

Student Achievement, Attitude and Motivation in Economics Education.
Journal of Social Science, Vol 33 No 2 , 261-270.

Yager, R., & Tamir, P. (1993). STS approach: reasons, intention, accomplishments
and outcomes. Science Education, 77, 637 658

Zakaria, E., Chin, L. C., & Daud, Y. (2010). The Effects of Cooperative Learning
on Students' Mathematics Achievement and Attitude toward Mathematics.
Journal of Social Sciences, 6(2), 272-275.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2010.272.275

82
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social–cognitive
perspective. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook
of self-regulation: Theory, research, and applications (pp.13–39). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.

83