The Impact of Student Choice to Engage in Cooperative Learning on the Final Exam While Controlling for Early Exam Performance and ACT in Introduction to Psychology
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2022
The Impact of Student Choice to Engage in Cooperative Learning on the Final Exam While Controlling for Early Exam Performance and ACT in Introduction to Psychology
Researchers suggest benefits for cooperative learning, but often fail to control for choosing to engage cooperatively, ACT scores or early course performance.
Objective:
To observe the effects of choosing cooperative work on exam performance in an Introduction to Psychology Course, while controlling for early exam performance and ACT.
Method:
Data from 261 students assessed the interaction between choice to work cooperatively, alone or being required to work alone while controlling for ACT Score and performance on early tests, respectively.
Results:
We observed an interaction between Group and ACT on final exam scores, indicating students who worked cooperatively showed the greatest exam benefits at lower ACT scores. Additionally, a trend toward a significant interaction was found between group and early exam performance, indicating a possible benefit for choosing to work cooperatively for low performers.
Conclusion:
Choosing to engage in cooperative learning may decrease ACT-indicated skill differences and early exam success on final exam performance.
Teaching Implications:
To decrease the impact of ACT-influenced effects on exam scores, choice to complete cooperative learning activities should be offered in Introduction to Psychology courses.
AzminN. (2016). Effect of the jigsaw-based cooperative learning method on student performance in the general certificate of education advanced-level psychology: An exploratory Brunei case study. International Education Studies, 9(1), 91–106. http://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n1p91
2.
BallC. T.PelcoL. E. (2006). Teaching research methods to undergraduate psychology students using an active cooperative learning approach. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 17(2), 147–154.
3.
BernsteinD. A. (2018). Does active learning work? A good question, but not the right one. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 290–307. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000124
4.
BrooksC.YoungS. (2011). Are choice-making opportunities needed in the classroom? Using self- determination theory to consider student motivation and learner empowerment. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 23(1), 48–59.
5.
CarstensC. B.BeckH. P. (1986). The relationship of high school psychology and natural science courses to performance in a college introductory psychology class. Teaching of Psychology, 13, 116–118. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1303_3
6.
CohenE. G. (1994). Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). Teachers College Press, Routledge.
7.
CohenE. G. (2014). Designing group work: Strategies for the heterogeneous classroom (3rd ed.). Teachers College Press.
8.
CohenE.LotanR. A.ScarlossB. A.ArellanoA. R. (1999). Complex instruction: Equity in cooperative learning classrooms. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849909543836
9.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
DuncanB.Barber-FreemanP. T. (2008). A model for establishing learning communities at a HBCU in graduate classes. Journal of Negro Education, 77(3), 241–249.
12.
DeutschM. (1962). Cooperation and trust: Some theoretical notes. In MeltonG. B. (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 275–320). University of Nebraska Press.
13.
EaganK.StolzenbergE. B.LozanoJ. B.AragonM. C.SuchardM. R.HurtadoS. (2014). Undergraduate teaching faculty: The 2013–2014 HERI faculty survey. UCLA Higher Education Research Institute.
14.
GarciaT.PintrichP. R. (1996). The effects of autonomy on motivation and performance in the college classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 477–486. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1996.0032
15.
GilliesR. M.AshmanA. FTerwelJ. (2008). The teacher’s role in implementing cooperative learning in the classroom. Springer.
16.
GriggsR. A.JacksonS. L. (1988). A reexamination of the relationship of high school psychology and natural science courses to performance in a college introductory psychology class. Teaching of Psychology, 15, 142–144. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top1503_9
17.
Guàrdia-OlmosJ.Peró-CebolleroM.Freixa-BlanxartM.Turbany-OsetJ.Gordóvil-MerinoA. (2013). Analysis of the implications of cooperative work in terms of performance and satisfaction among students registered in the data analysis in psychology course. Quality and Quantity, 47, 2095–2105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-011-9644-5
18.
GuberaC.ArugueteM. (2013). A comparison of cooperative and traditional instruction in higher education. Social Psychology of Education, 16, 651–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-013-9225-7
19.
HuangS.FangN. (2013). Predicting student academic performance in an engineering dynamics course: A comparison of four types of predictive mathematical models. Computers & Education, 61, 133–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.08.015
20.
JensenP.BarronJ. (2014). Midterm and first-exam grades predict final grades in biology courses. Journal of College Science Teaching, 44(2), 82–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43631961
21.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Interaction Book Company.
22.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (1999). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning (5th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
23.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T. (2011). Social interdependence theory. In ChristieD. J. (Ed.), The encyclopedia of peace psychology. American Cancer Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470672532.wbepp257
24.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T.SmithK. A. (1998). Cooperative learning returns to college: What evidence is there that it works?Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 30(4), 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/00091389809602629
25.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonR. T.SmithK. A. (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching, 25, 85–118.
26.
JohnsonD. W.JohnsonT.StanneM. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. University of Minnesota Press.
27.
KomarrajuM.KarauS. J.SchmeckR. R. (2009). Role of the big five personality traits in predicting college students’ academic motivation and achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.07.001
MillsP.SweeneyW.BonnerS. M. (2009). Using the first exam for student placement in beginning chemistry courses. Journal of Chemical Education, 86(6), 738. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed086p738
30.
NolanJ. M.HanleyB. G.DiVietriT. P.HarveyN. A. (2018). She who teaches learns: Performance benefits of a jigsaw activity in a college classroom. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 4(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000110
31.
O’ConnorM. C.PaunonenS. V. (2007). Big five personality predictors of post-secondary academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(5), 971–990. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2007.03.017
32.
PerkinsD. V.SarisR. N. (2001). A “jigsaw classroom” technique for undergraduate statistics courses. Teaching of Psychology, 28(2), 111–113. https://doi.org/:10.1207/S15328023TOP2802_09
33.
SalomoneM.KlingT. (2017). Required peer-cooperative learning improves retention of STEM majors. International Journal of STEM Education, 4(19), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40594-017-0082-3
34.
SawyerJ.ObeidR. (2017). Cooperative and collaborative learning: Getting the best of both words. In ObeidR.SchwartzA.Shane-SimpsonC.BrooksP. J. (Eds.), How we teach now: The GSTA guide to student-centered teaching (pp. 163–177). Retrieved The Society for the Teaching of Psychology website from: http://teachpsych.org/ebooks/
35.
SawyerJ.ObeidR.BublitzD.SchwartzA. M.BrooksP. J.RichmondA. S. (2017). Which forms of active learning are most effective: Cooperative learning, writing-to-learn, multimedia instruction, or some combination?Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 3, 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000095
36.
SlavinR. E. (1991). Are cooperative learning and untracking harmful to the gifted?Educational Leadership, 48(6), 68–71.
SmithM. K.WoodW. B.KrauterK.KnightJ. K. (2011). Combining peer discussion with instructor explanation increases student learning from in-class concept questions. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 10(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-08-0101
39.
SpringerL.StanneM. E.DonovanS. S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543069001021
40.
StockdaleS. L.WilliamsR. L. (2004). Cooperative learning groups at the college level: Differential effects on high, average, and low exam performers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 13, 37–50.
41.
SummersM.VoletS. (2008). Students’ attitudes towards culturally mixed groups on international campuses: Impact of participation in diverse and non-diverse groups. Studies in Higher Education, 33, 357. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03075070802211430
42.
TerenziniP. T.CabreraA. F.ColbeckC. L.ParenteJ. M.BjorklundS. A. (2001). Cooperative learning vs. Lecture/discussion: Students’ reported learning gains. Journal of Engineering Education, 90, 123–130. http://doi.org/10.1002/j.2168-9830.2001.tb00579.x
43.
ThompsonR. A.ZamboangaB. L. (2004). Academic aptitude and prior knowledge as predictors of student achievement in introduction to psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(4), 778–784. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.4.778
44.
TomchoT. J.WolfeW. L.FoelsR. (2006). Teaching about psychological disorders: Using a group interviewing and diagnostic approach. Teaching of Psychology, 33(3), 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3303_6
