Submitted to :

ENGR. FERNANDO ARCE

Submitted by:

BRYAN MANGLAPUS
- BSCE II-
 I. TITLE
EFFECTS OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING ON THE PERFORMANCE OF
FIRST YEAR ENGINEERING STUDENTS IN MATHEMATICS 101 AT COLEGIO DE
LA PURISIMA CONCEPCION

II. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

The Major objective of this study is to determine the effects of
cooperative learning on the performance of first year engineering
students in Math 101 at Colegio de la Purisima Concepcion, for academic
year 2011-2012. Specifically it sought to answer the following questions:
1) What is the level of performance of Engineering Students in
Mathematics 101 in the experimental group in the pretest and posttest?
2) What is the level of performance of Engineering Students in
Mathematics 101 in the control group in the pretest and posttest?
3) Is there a significant difference in the performance of the experimental
group in the pretest and posttest?
4) Is there a significant difference in the performance of the control group
in the pretest and posttest?
5) Is there a significant difference in the performance of the experimental
and control group in posttest?

III. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE STUDY

This study is anchored on the theory of Kagan (2001) who stressed that
cooperative learning techniques promote student learning and
academic achievement, increase student retention, satisfaction with their
learning experience, help them develop skills in oral and written
communication, develop their social skills, and promote self-esteem
among themselves. The cooperative learning exposes the students to the
ideas of other members of the group.
 This theory is supported by Johnson and Johnson (1998), which stated
that cooperative learning is an effective teaching technique because it
enhances collaborative thinking by more frequently giving and receiving
explanation, which has potential to increase depth of understanding,
quality of reasoning and the accuracy of long term retention. The use of
the cooperative learning technique leads to improve student learning
and retention from both the developmental and cognitive theoretical
bases. In this technique the student is assessed for content mastery as well
as interpersonal skills.
Copper (1998) also stressed that, cooperative learning is more
elaborate than group work activity. Cooperative learning can be
incorporated into your classroom management system. If you train your
students to work effectively in groups, the results can be a very productive
and fun learning environment.

IV. RESEARCH DESIGN

The Pretest-Posttest experimental design was used in this study. This
design is generally used in the classroom where respondents are divided
into two groups, where the control and the experimental groups are
determined through simple random sampling. Pre-test is to be conducted
to both groups at the beginning of the study to serve as the baseline data
for comparison purposes. The treatment is given to the experimental
group where cooperative learning technique is applied while the control
group does not receive the treatment; instead the conventional teaching
method is used. After the experiment, posttest is given to the two groups
to determine the gains of the experimental group (Gay, 1992).

Findings of the study

 1. What is the level of performance of engineering students in mathematics 101 in the
experimental group in the pretest and posttest?
In the pretest, majority of the respondents had fair performance as shown in their
computed mean score of 79.80, while in the post test the computed mean score was
86.60 and verbally interpreted as satisfactory.
2. What is the level performance of engineering students in mathematics 101 in the control
group in the pretest and posttest? The computed mean scores of the respondents in the
pretest was 77.29 which showed that majority of the respondents performed within the
passing level only, while in the posttest, the grand mean score of the respondents is
80.24, and described as fair.
3. Is there a significant difference in the performance of the experimental group in the
pretest and posttest?
Data showed that mean score in the pre-test of the experimental group were 79.80 and
86.60 in the post-test. There was a mean difference of 6.80 between the pretest and the
post-test and the post-test with a computed t-value of 4.79. The sig. (2-tailed) value was
0.000 which was lower that alpha 0.05, which means that there was a significant
difference.
4. Is there a significant difference in the performance of the control group in the pre-test
and post-test?
Findings showed that the mean score of the respondents in the pre-test was 77.29 and
80.24 in the post-test with a mean difference of 2.95. The computed t-value was 1.2 with
sig (2-tailed) value of 0.019 which was lower than alpha 0.05. This showed there was a
significant difference in the performance in the pre-test and post-test in the control
group.
5. Is there a significant difference in the performance of experimental and control group in
post-test?
The mean score in the control group was 80.24, while the mean in the experimental
group was 86.60. This showed a mean difference of 6.36 with a computed t-value of 4.36
and sig. (2-tailed) value of 0.000, which was lower that alpha 0.05. This indicated that
there was a significant difference in the performance of the experimental and control
group in the post-test.

Conclusion
 Based on the findings of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:

Cooperative learning as a teaching method was effective in developing the performance

of the students in mathematics 101. The exposure of the students to this type of teaching
strategy provides an opportunity for them to work together, share not only their insights but
also their learning. They were given a chance to listen to one another, asking questions, clarify
issues, and expound on issues and concerns not only in mathematics but also in other areas of
learning. The students developed the ability to work together, learned and tolerated the
opinions and views of each other in the group which promotes better learning. This does not
mean that they abandon their individuality. The members ,of the group by working together
were aware of their qualities and they strive to give and the same time to receive.

Cooperative learning helped students in getting to know and trust one another as they
accept and support each other and resolve conflicts constructively. Group work helped the
students understand the importance of success and they were proud to be members of the
group for whatever accomplishment they do at the end of the assign task.

Learning mathematics concepts through the cooperative learning method lessens the
dependence of students to teachers and they do their best to be resourceful to achieve the
goals and objectives of the group to which they belong. The teachers were not considered a
repository of knowledge but it guides, assess and inspire the students in doing their group
assignments.

In cooperative learning, individual participation was maximized because the members of

the group discuss issues and concerns simultaneously. Thus means that all students
participated in the discussion which does not happen in the lecture/discussion method. By
means of cooperative activities the students were encouraged to render reports, which provide
them an opportunity to maximize their participation.

The members of the experimental group had gained desirable performance as a result
of cooperative learning as a teaching strategy. Although the performance of the students in
control group had improved in the post-test, yet the difference was far when compared with
the respondents in the experimental group.

Recommendations
 Based on the findings and conclusion, the following recommendations were proposed:

1. Teachers teaching Mathematics should use cooperative learning as one of the teaching
strategies to enhance the performance of the students.
2. The school administrators should encourage their teachers to use cooperative learning
and allow their teachers to attend trainings on cooperative learning as a teaching
technique.
3. The school administrators should conduct seminars and workshops where
demonstration teaching will use cooperative learning as part of the activities.
4. Teachers should see to it that the students actively participate in their daily activities
and perform the role given to the m inside the classroom.
5. There should be a rigid monitoring in the use of the cooperative learning method to
strength the performance of the students.
6. The teacher should evaluate the performance of the students, to discover their
strengths and weaknesses so that groups may be created with different or mixed
abilities.
7. Further researches should be conducted on the use of cooperative learning using
quantitative and qualitative approaches to establish the veracity of this study.

Bibliography
 References Cited

A. Books
Cohen, E.G. (1991), Design Group Works: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classrooms. New
York, USA: Teachers College Press.

Cooper, J. (1998), Cooperative Learning and College Teaching. California State University, USA:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Gaikwad, P. (1996), Cooperative Learning Strategy Setting and Stage of Faith Learning in the
Classroom, Dune, India

David, Fely P. (2002), Understanding and Doing Research: A Handbook for Beginners, Trial
Edition, Iloilo City: Panorama Printing Inc.

Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1998), Cooperative Learning and Social Interdependence
Theory, Minnesota State University, Minnesota Minneapolis, USA: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Lardizabal, A. et al. (2002), Principles and Methods of Teaching. Quezon City. Phoenix
Publishing House.

Mendenhall W. et al (1999), Introduction to Probability and Statistics. 10th Edition, USA:

Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Slavin, R.I. (1995), Cooperative Learning, Theory, Research and Practice Los Angeles, California,
USA: Parker and Sons Publishing Inc.
Webster, Allen L. (1992), Applied Statistics for Business and Economics. United States of
America: Von Hoffman Press Inc.

B. Journals
Abu, R.B. (2007), “The Effect of Cooperative Learning Methods on Achievement, Retention, and
Attitudes of Home Economic Students in North Carolina”. Journal for Education. 21, 132-144.

Adams, D., Carlson, H. (1990), “Cooperative Learning and Education Media; Collaborating
Technology”. Journal of Classroom Instruction. 41, 62-69., USA.

Dahley, A.M. (1999), “Cooperative Learning Classroom Research”. University of Massachusetts,

USA.

Humprey, et al. (2006), “Effects of Cooperative Competitive and Individualistic Learning on

Students’ Achievement” Journal for Research in Mathematics. Vol. IX 34, 24-39

Kagan, S. (2001), “Structural Approach to Cooperative Learning Structures for Emotional

Intelligence”. Journal for Classroom Instruction. Vol. X 36, 02-11

Sherman and Thomas (1996), “Mathematics Achievement in Cooperative Versus Individualistic

Goal Structured in High School Classrooms”. Miami State University, Oxford and Ross, USA

Zakaria, E. and Iksan, Z. (2007), “Promoting Cooperative Learning in Mathematics”. Eurasia

Journal of Mathematics and Technology, Malaysia

C. Unpublished Materials
Abaygar, Irene F. (1992), “Peer Collaboration and Selected Variables as Mediator of Biology
Achievement among College Freshmen”, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, West Visayas State
University, Iloilo City

Arguelles, E.S. (1990), “The Relative Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning and the Traditional
Methods in Teaching College Algebra”, Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Colegio de la Purisima
Concepcion, Roxas City

Arañador, L.C. (1990), “Mathematics Learning Outcomes from Cooperative, Competitive,

Individualistic and Traditional Teaching Strategies”. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation,
University of the Philippines, Quezon City

Go, B.M. (1993), “The Relative Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning Method and the
Traditional Method in Teaching High School Mathematics IV”, Unpublished Master’s Thesis,
West Visayas State University, Iloilo City

Lago, R.M. and A. Nawang (2007), “Influence of Cooperative Learning on Chemistry Students,
Achievement, Self-Efficacy and Attitude”. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Cagayan State
University, CDO City

Lazada, W. (2005), “Effects of Cooperative Learning on Values and Performance of Pupils in

English”. Unpublished Master’s Thesis Colegio de la Purisima Concepcion, Roxas City

McDonald, J.K.A (1990), “Qualitative Study of the Role of Cooperative Studying in a College
Remedial Class”. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of IOWA

Nava, E. (2003), “Team Building and Values in Relation to Performance”. Unpublished Doctoral
Dissertation, Colegio de la Purisima Concepcion, Roxas City
Vallejo, MA. J. (2008), “Effects of Cooperative Learning on the Performance in English of Second
Year College Students”. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Colegio de la Purisima Concepcion, Roxas
City

D. Other Sources
Felder, R.M. and R. Brent (1994), “Cooperative Learning in Technical Courses”: Procedures,
Pitfalls and Payoffs. ERIC Document Reproduction Services.

Microsoft Encarta 2007

E. Online References
www.cooperativelearning.com

www.dictionary.com

www.wikepedia.com

www.studentscooperativelearning.com

www.tertiarystudentscooperativelearning.com

www.cooperativelearningoutput.com

www.studentscooperativeeffect.com

www2.ed.gov/pub/OR/ConcumerGuides/cooplear.html

www.co-operation.org/

www.thirteen.org/edonline/concept2class/coopcollab/

www.kagaonline.com/catalog/cooperative_learning.php

www.college.cengage.com/education/pbl/tc/coop.html
 Abstract

The Major objective of this study is to determine the effects of cooperative

learning on the performance of first year engineering students in Mathematics
101 at Colegio de la Purisima Concepcion, for academic year 2011 - 2012.
Specifically it sought to answer the following questions:

1. What is the level of performance of Engineering Students in Mathematics

101 in the experimental group in the pretest and posttest?

2. What is the level of performance of Engineering Students in Mathematics

101 in the control group in the pretest and posttest?

3. Is there a significant difference in the performance of the experimental

group in the pretest and posttest?

4. Is there a significant difference in the performance of the control group in

the pretest and posttest?

5. Is there a significant difference in the performance of the experimental and

control group in posttest?

This study covers 41 first year engineering students of Colegio de la Purisima

Concepcion for academic year 2011-2012. These students were grouped into two.
Twenty were used as the experimental group and 21 for the control group.

The Pretest-Posttest Control Group Design was used in this study. The
cooperative teaching technique was used to determine its effect on the
performance of the students in the experimental group. A questionnaire was used
to gather data on the social-demographic characteristics of the respondents.
Pretest and posttest in mathematics was used to determine the performance of
the students.
 The statistical tools used were frequency, percentage, mean, and t-test. The
level of significance was set at alpha 0.05. All statistical data were computed
processed.

Findings

There is a pre-dominance of male respondents in both the experimental

and control group. Majority of them are living in the poblacion. Most of the
respondents’ parents have a job and can support the needs of their students in
taking up engineering course. Findings also show that majority of the
respondents’ estimated monthly family income is from Php10, 001.00 to Php
20,000.00 which is considered as average. The data further revealed that majority
of the respondents in the experimental group had good performance as
compared with the control group where majority of the respondents had fair
performance based on their grades in high school mathematics.

Majority of the respondents in the experimental group had fair

performance in the pretest. While in the posttest, the performance was
satisfactory. This indicated that the cooperative learning teaching technique
improved the performance of the respondents.

In the control group, majority of the respondents in the pretest are

performed within the passing level only and a slight increased for the posttest. In
the experimental group, the results indicated that there was a significant
difference between the pretest and posttest performance of the respondents,
while in the control group, the results also showed that there was a significant
difference in their performance.

Findings also indicated that the respondents in the experimental group had
better performance than those in the control group. The results might be due to
the exposure of the experimental group to cooperative learning where there
were greater amounts of self-activity.