Home⇛Psychology and Education: A Multidisciplinary Journal⇛vol. 9 no. 3 (2023)

Implications of Team - Based Learning Strategies on the Attitude of Freshmen Students in Mathematics in a State University in Cagayan Valley, Philippines

Freddie Patricio

Discipline: Education

 

Abstract:

In terms of attitude toward Mathematics, the three groups of samples had remarkable increase in their post-test mean scores in the attitude scale in Mathematics as supported by the overall post-test mean score of 141.67 as compared to the initial overall mean of 115.82. Likewise, the pre-test mean scores registered in the attitude scale by the three groups of samples are 116.40, 115.07, and 116.00 for the TAI, STAD and control groups, respectively. The mean differences of the three groups of sample were treated and yielded F-value 0.0875 with corresponding p-value of 0.9164 which is higher than the level of significance of 0.05. This means that the three groups of samples are comparable at the start of the experiment. In like manner, the experimental group taught by cooperative learning strategy Student Team Achievement Division registered a mean difference of 27.66in their pre-test and post-test scores in the achievement test in Business Mathematics which when treated using dependent t-test yielded t-value of 11.4629 with corresponding p-value of 0.0000 which is much lesser that the level of significance of 0.05.This could mean that the cooperative learning strategy STAD is likewise effective strategy in teaching. Furthermore, the experimental group taught by cooperative learning strategy STAD registered a mean difference 34.40 in their attitude toward Mathematics. This mean difference when treated using dependent t-test yielded t-value of 11.7251 with corresponding p-value of 0.0000 which is much lesser that the level of significance of 0.05.This could mean that the cooperative learning strategy STAD is effective strategy in improving the samples attitude toward Mathematics.Lastly, the control group taught by the traditional method recorded a mean difference of 14.07 in their attitude toward Mathematics which when treated using dependent t-test yielded t-value of 5.4423 with corresponding p-value of 0.0000 which is much lesser that the level of significance of 0.05.This could mean that the traditional method is also effective in improving the samples attitude toward Mathematics. In the case of attitude toward Mathematics, the post-test mean scores registered by the three groups of samples are 145.47, 149.47, and 130.07 for the TAI, STAD and control groups, respectively. The mean differences of the three groups of sample were treated statistically and yielded F-value of 76.4688 with corresponding p-value of 0.0000 which is very much lower than the level of significance of 0.05. This indicates that the cooperative learning strategies TAI and STAD are more effective in improving the samples attitude toward Mathematics than the traditional method of teaching.



References:

  1. Aronson, E. Overview of the Technique. Jigsaw Classroom. R e t r i e v e d o n N o v e m b e r 2 9 , 2 0 1 4 f o r m http://www.jigsaw.org/overview.htm
  2. Artut, D. P., &Tarim, K (2007). The effectiveness of Jigsaw II on prospective elementary school teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education 35(2); 129–141.
  3. Asuncion, J. D. (2014) “Effectiveness of Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) and Team Assisted Individualization (TAI) Strategies on the Achievement in chemistry of Junior Students at Santa Fe National High School.”Unpublished Thesis. Nueva Vizcaya State University. Bambang Campus
  4. Awatef, A. (2006) Effectiveness of cooperative mastery learning strategy on learning English language and attitude towards it of third years intermediate school students in al-ahasa. King Abdulaziz University,Vol. 22, (2), pp. 1-526.
  5. Bergom, I., Wright, C. M., Brown, K. M., & Brooks, M. (2011).Promoting college student development through collaborative learning: A case Study of hevruta. American College Personnel Association and Wiley Periodicals.
  6. Brady, M., &Tsay, M. (2010).A case study of cooperative learning and communication pedagogy; Does working in teams make a difference? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(2), 78-89.
  7. British Psychological Society (2005).Proceedings of the British psychological society, Volumes 13-14.London- UK: The Society.
  8. Brown, C. A., &McIlroy, K. (2011). Group work in healthcare students’ education: What do we think we are doing? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(6), 687–699.
  9. Burstein, L. (1992). The analysis of multilevel data in educational research and evaluation. Review of Research in Education; 8, 158- 223.
  10. Chih-Hsiang Wu.,Gwo-Jen Hwang, Fan-Ray Kuo, Iwen Huang. (2013). Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 29(1).p.128-142.
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Los Angeles [etc.: SAGE Publications.
  12. Dallmer, D. (2007). Collaborative test taking with adult learners .Kentucky- USA: Krieger Publishing Company.
  13. Davidson, N., & Major, C. H. (2014). Boundary crossings: Cooperative learning, collaborative learning, and problem-based learning. Journal on Excellence in College Teaching,25(3&4), p.7- 55.
  14. David, V. P., & Renee, N. S. (2001).“Jigsaw Classroom” technique for undergraduate.
  15. Dingel, J. M., Wei, W. &Huq, A. (2013). Cooperative learning and  peer evaluation: The effect of free riders on team performance and the relationship between course performance and peer evaluation. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13(1):45 – 56.
  16. Dollard, W. M. & Mahoney, K. (n.d). How effective is the Jigsaw method when used to introduce new science curricula in middle school science. Ontario Action Researcher 1:1-15
  17. Doymus, K. (2008). Teaching chemical equilibrium with the Jigsaw technique. Research in Science Education.
  18. Doymus, K., Karacop, A., &Simsek, U. (2010). Effects of jigsaw and animation techniques on students’ understanding of concepts and subjects in electro chemistry. Education Technical Research 58:671– 691.
  19. Duco. L., (2012), Effect of cooperative learning strategies on the achievement in and attitude toward chemistry of secondary juniors at Nueva Vizcaya State University – Bambang Campus. Unpublished thesis manuscript
  20. Dyson, B., & Casey, A. (2012).Cooperative Learning in Physical Education: A Research-based Approach: Routledge studies in physical education and youth sport. Routledge.
  21. Esteban, H. M. (2007) “Relative Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Strategies on the Psychomotor Performance in Metal Craft of Sophomore High School Students of Batanes State College”. Unpublished Thesis. Nueva Vizcaya State University Bambang
  22. Farooq, M. S. and Shah, S. Z. U. (2008).Students’ attitude toward Mathematics. Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 48(1), 75-83
  23. Frame, L. D. (2014). Building a collaborative exam study guide to promote student success in the college classroom .Association for University Regional Campuses of Ohio20:1-8.
  24. Gwet, K. L. (2014). Handbook of inter-rater reliability: The definitive guide to measuring the extent of agreement among raters. 4th (ed). Gaithersburg, Md: Advances Analytics.
  25. Hart, L. (1989). Classroom processes, sex of students and confidence in learning Mathematics. Journal of Research in Mathematics Education, 20(3), 242-260.
  26. Hua, N. (2014). A feasible study on cooperative learning in large class college English teaching. Theory & Practice in Language Studies, 4(9), 1862-1868.
  27. Huang, T. C., Huang, Y. M., & Yu, F. Y. (2011). Cooperative weblog learning in higher education: It’s facilitating effects on social interaction, time lag, and cognitive load. Social Interaction, Time Lag, and Cognitive Load. Educational Technology & Society, 14(1), 95- 106.
  28. Hsiung, C-M.(2011). Identification of dysfunctional cooperative learning teams using taguchi quality indexes. Educational Technology & Society, 14 (3):152–162.
  29. Jenkins, J. R., Antil, L. R., Wayne, S. K., &Vadasy, P. F. (2003). How cooperative learning works for special education and remedial students. Council for Exceptional Children, 6(3),279-292.
  30. Jeong, H., & Chi, M. H. (2006).Knowledge convergence and collaborative learning. Instructional Science, 35(1), 287-315.
  31. Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1989).Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
  32. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., &Holubec, E.J. (1994).The new circles of learning: Cooperation in the classroom and school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  33. Olonan, S.A.S. (2010). “Effect of behavioural modification strategies on the achievement in and attitude toward Algebra among secondary sophomores at the Nueva Vizcaya State University”. Unpublished Thesis. Nueva Vizcaya State University Ospina E Tertiary Education. Our world in data https://ourworldindata.org/tertiary-education
  34. Mata, M.L. (2012) Attitudes towards Mathematics: Effects of Individual, Motivational, and Social Support Factors. https://www.hindawi.com/journals/cdr/2012/876028/
  35. Neale, D. C. (1969). The role of attitudes in learning mathematics. Arithmetic Teacher, 16, 631-640
  36. Rai, N., & Samsuddin, S. (2007). STAD vs Traditional teaching, Redesigning Pedagogy –crpp conference 2007.[Online] Available: http://conference.nie.edu.sg/2007/paper/papers/STU349.pdf
  37. Remolazo L.P. (2015). “Effectiveness of Student Team Achievement Division strategy on the achievement in Engineering Algebra 2 of freshmen at Nueva Vizcaya State University Bambang Campus”. Unpublished Thesis. NVSU Bambang
  38. Regudon, L.C. (2003).”The effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies on the achievement in trigonometry and attitude toward mathematics of freshman students at the Nueva Vizcaya State Institute of Technology: Basis for evolving a mathematics training program”. Unpublished Thesis, Nueva Vizcaya State Polytechnic College, Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya
  39. Slavin, R.E. (1994). Outcome – based education is not mastery learning: Educational leadership, 51(6): 14.
  40. Schenkel, B. (2009). The impact of an attitude toward mathematics on mathematics performance. Unpublished MA Thesis, Mariette College
  41. Soriano, V.D. (2001) “Teaching Handicrafts through Cooperative Learning Strategy: It’s Effect on the Psychomotor Performance of Freshmen High School Students at the NVSPC”. Unpublished Thesis. NVSPC.
  42. Villamor, M.M. (2002) “The Effect of Cooperative Learning Strategy on the Achievement in English of Students at Sta. Fe National High School”. Unpublished Thesis. Nueva Vizcaya State University, Bambang, Campus.
  43. Yara, P. O. (2009). Relationship between teachers’ attitude and students’ academic achievement in Mathematics in some selected Senior Secondary Schools in South-western Nigeria. European Journal of Social Sciences, 11(3), 364-369.

Tools


Copyright © 2024  KITE Digital Educational Solutions |  Exclusively distributed by CE-Logic