Pakistan Journal of Education

Vol. 35, No. 2, 2018, 37-52

Effect of Cooperative Learning on Students’

Achievement in English Tenses
Muhammad Anwer*
Ijaz Ahmad Tatlah**
Intzar Hussain Butt***

Abstract

The present study aimed to find out the effect of cooperative learning on
secondary school students’ achievement in English tenses. In this
research pre-test posttest control group only design was used. On the
basis of 8th grade students’ scores in the subject of English conducted by
Punjab Education Commission (PEC), sixty students of ninth grade, who
were enrolled in a public school, were divided into experimental and
control groups by using matched-pair technique. A teacher made test was
conducted as pre-test and post-test for both groups. No significant
difference was found in pre-test scores of experimental and control
groups. The experimental group was treated by STAD (Student Team
Achievement Division) method of cooperative learning while control
group was taught by traditional learning under the control condition for a
period for eight weeks. Analysis of the data revealed the performance of
experimental group was significantly better than that of control group.
Hence, it was concluded that cooperative learning was better
instructional strategy for increasing the student achievement in English
tenses. By viewing the information obtained by this study, the secondary
school English teachers may be in a position to improve their teaching
methodology. Keeping in view the results of the study, curriculum
designers and policy makers may be able to incorporate cooperative
learning as the methodological aspect of the curriculum. On the whole
the study will be useful for teachers, educationists, curriculum
developers, policy makers and educational administrators.

Keywords: cooperative learning, student team achievement division

(stad), achievement, English tenses

*
Assistant Professor, University of Education Lahore, Email: [email protected]
**
Assistant Professor, University of Education, Lahore
***
Assistant Professor, University of Education, Lahore
Anwer, Tatlah & Butt 38

Introduction

Education is the central pillar of the entire systems of a country.

Nobody can negate the vibrant role of education in nation building. In
the era of globalization it has become the necessity of time to teach the
digital learners of 21st century with more innovative styles and strategies
to develop a skilled and competent nation. Consequently, there is a need
for appropriate methods and strategies to provide the quality of
education. Especially in Pakistan, there is a major decline of appropriate
methods of teaching English as it is seen often in public schools which
adopt traditional learning methods. Traditional strategy is not enough in
this modern era of education system. Researchers (Khan, 2008;Yang,
2013; Adyeme, 2008;Tanel & Erol, 2008) had found that cooperative
learning was better than traditional learning. Cooperative learning has
been proven a better instructional strategy for the teaching of foreign
languages and it is being used all over the world due to social interaction
involved in it (Kagan, 1994).John Dewey was considered as a key figure
in the early 19th century who emphasized on learning by doing. Deutsch
(1949) had examined that the results of cooperation in small groups are
better than competition due to multifaceted out comes (John & Johnson,
1999).
In cooperative learning strategy, students work actively and
decisively in small groups to improve their learning skills (Johnson &
Johnson, 1999).Several researchers such as Khan (2008), Atashian and
Zamini (2013), Aziz (2010) and Gaith (2003) found that cooperative
learning outperformed traditional method and it enhances the
communication skills (Bukunola and Idowu, 2012; Flynn, 2013; Sharan
& Sharan, 1992; Simsek, 2009; Vaughan, 2000; Wola, 2008).
Cooperative learning is a settlement that works closely with different
groups of students which receive a reward based on the success of the
entire group (Woolfolk, 2001). So, cooperative learning is a student
centered strategy in which the role of a teacher is to provide facilitation
as compared to traditional teaching. Research findings revealed that
cooperative learning approach has increased student satisfaction with
their learning process. It promotes student self-confidence in promoting
social skills and promoting positive relationships (Kagan, 1994).
Learning English language is of vital importance as it is the language
of communication, technology, teaching and learning; however, it is
equally important to understand the process of how we can improve
language learning abilities among our students whose future is mostly
associated with the learning in English language. Adams and Hamm
Effect of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Achievement in English Tenses 39

(1990) stated that in Pakistan traditional method of teaching language

which is the most common and the least effective teaching method is
used. This method is not enough for learning English as any language
learning requires social interaction, while traditional learning involves no
or less social interaction. Johnson and Johnson (1999) divided
cooperative learning into four elements. Positive interdependence means
that all the members of the group are bounded and dependent on each
other and success of group is considered the success of the individual as
they strongly believe on “sink or swim together” policy. Individual
accountability means that every individual in the group is valuable and
has the equal importance among the group as the other group members.
Slavin (1995) concluded that in cooperative learning failure or success of
the group and member are attached. So inter-dependence enhances
achievement. While having Face-to-face Interaction, students orally
discuss problems in such a way that every individual verbally exchange
his or her ideas, under specific seating arrangement that every person of
the group could easily listen, see and respond to each other. Interpersonal
skills, also called social skills, include communication, listening,
delegation of tasks, decision power and leaderships that promote the
effective communication and interaction among the students.
Slavin (1995) developed the student achievement division method
which is consisted of formation of the groups, containing 4-5 students
each with different performance level, teacher presents the material and
delivers the sheets relative to the content, teacher allows the students to
discuss and to share their ideas cooperatively in the groups, individual
quizzes, and sum up the individual quiz scores and winner team is
appreciated at the end. In STAD method every member contributes to his
group and it is being used as eclectic approach now a day. Slavin (1995)
clarified that STAD method is useful to enhance the motivation among
the students as positive interdependence lies in this approach and this
method is deeply rooted in cognitive perspective, motivational
perspective and cognitive elaboration perspective. Motivational
perspective stresses on the goal or reward for students’ work (Slavin,
1996). Cognitive elaboration perspective puts stress on clarification and
explanation of the material to another person. Slavin (1991) identified
that students illustrated the elaborated strategies to each other and in this
way they mastered the complex cognitive process. A large number of
studies have been performed to find out the effects of cooperative
learning in different subjects and at different levels. Servetti (2009)
found that effect of cooperative learning for correction and grammar
revision technique was significant. Iqbal (2004) studied STAD method of
Anwer, Tatlah & Butt 40

cooperative learning in secondary school mathematics. Khan (2012)

explored students’ academic achievements and self esteem in 9th class
biology subject through cooperative learning. Pan and Wu (2013) studied
effects of cooperative learning on comprehension of English reading and
motivation for learning infirst year students of English as Foreign
Language. Many researchers (Atashian & Zamini, 2013; Khan,
2008;Jalilifar, 2010 &Ghorbani, 2012) found that cooperative learning
(CL) outperformed traditional methods in classrooms. Cooperative
learning in this regard can help to meet the desired goal.A few researches
were also found which opposed the cooperative learning such as
Parveen, Mahmood and Mahmood (2011) found that cooperative
learning was not effective in social studies subject for 8th graders.
According to Siddiqui (2003), accessible investigation on other
languages indicated that the learners should learn language in groups. As
literature review gave mixed points of view about the effectiveness of
cooperative learning, researchers themselves tried to explore its
effectiveness in Pakistani background. Learning tenses of English is
considered quite important in Pakistan as it is believed to be the base for
language learning and hence helps to perform better in comprehension,
grammar and other aspects of language. So, this study was an effort to
find out the effect of cooperative learning on secondary level students
achievement in the subject of English in a third world country like
Pakistan.

Objectives of the Study

The objectives of the study were

i. To find out the students’ achievement in English tenses with
traditional learning strategy.
ii. To investigate the students’ achievement in English tenses with
cooperative learning.
iii. To compare the students’ achievement in English tenses with
cooperative learning and traditional strategy.

Research Questions

i. Is there any significant difference between experimental and control

groups in the pre-test scores?
ii. Is there any significant difference between experimental and control
groups in the posttest scores?
Effect of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Achievement in English Tenses 41

iii. Is there any significant difference between experimental and control

groups in the pre-test and posttest scores in present indefinite tense?
iv. Is there any significant difference between experimental and control
groups in the pre-test and posttest scores in present continuous tense?
v. Is there any significant difference between experimental and control
groups in the pre-test and posttest scores in present perfect tense?
vi. Is there any significant difference between experimental and control
groups in the pre-test and posttest scores in present perfect
continuous tense?

Methodology

An experimental study was conducted in English tenses to find the

effects of cooperative learning on 9thgrade students’ achievement in
English. All the sixty (60), 9th grade students in the subject of English
enrolled in a public high school in district Okara, Pakistan, were selected
as a sample in this study. Matching pair technique on the basis of PEC
result was used to distribute students in equal sized experimental and
control group having 30 students in each. In both groups students were
selected by using matched pair technique on the basis of PEC results of
English subject. In both groups students had the same abilities as both
groups involved twelve high achievers, twelve low achievers, and six
average students. Furthermore, six sub groups were created in
experimental group having five students each. Each sub-group had two
high achievers, one average and two low achievers. Pre-test post-test
control group design was used in this experimental study.
Experimental group was given treatment through STAD method of
cooperative learning. Control group received traditional method of
teaching. STAD method was developed by Slavin (1994), in which 4 to 5
students work together in a group. A heterogeneous group of students
with varying ability is prepared in which students of mix ability (low,
average, and high achievers) are included. The treatment involves three
stages: Initially, teacher instructs the whole groups. Second, the teacher
provides opportunity to the students to learn previously presented lesson
thoroughly and discuss to the group. Lastly, individual are given quizzes.
Each individual’s quiz score is counted and added into all individuals’
scores and represented as whole group score. Based on their group
performance, teams are nominated as supper, good, and excellent.
In this experimental research, the researchers used the same strategy
mentioned above. Permission was taken from the headmaster of the
school for experiment in 9th grade. One teacher having 5 years teaching
Anwer, Tatlah & Butt 42

experiences to secondary classes, with master in English degree were

randomly assigned to each group. The researcher trained the teacher
assigned to experimental group about how to successfully implement
cooperative learning method while teaching. On the first day in
experimental group lecture was delivered on the given content. On
second day, work sheets about the previous lesson and material were
distributed to each cooperative group and asked to solve together in the
sub groups. After receiving the sheets, students worked together in their
groups to master the material and teacher played the role as a facilitator
and helped the students if they required. On the third day, each individual
was asked to solve the quiz test without any help. Every individual’s quiz
test was marked and summed up as a whole team score. In the end
winning team was appreciated. Control group received instructions by
traditional learning method (lecture method). In both groups same
content in equal pace was taught but in control group, no sub groups
were made and it was taught under the control conditions.
Same content on same day was taught in both groups. Both groups
were taught separately and carefully so that nobody could mix in the
other group. Moreover, work sheets were collected after the period. Pre-
test was administered prior to treatment whereas post-test was conducted
at the end of the treatment. Various threats to internal validity were
controlled during the experiment. For example, History was controlled
by randomization of experimental occasions i.e. balancing in terms of
experimenter, time of day, week, etc. Both the groups were taught by the
same teacher for eight weeks. Classes were scheduled on Monday to
Friday (daily for 35 minutes). Equal number of students was assigned to
each group to control maturation and testing threats. No student was
dropped out of the study and thus mortality threat was controlled.
To collect the data, teacher made test was used. The test included
items on all the four forms of present tenses i.e. indefinite, continuous,
perfect, and perfect continuous. The test included multiple choice
question (MCQs) items. Same test was used for pretest and post test. The
items included simple language of items so that students might not be
deceived by the language of the content and could possibly understood
the language clearly. The data were analyzed by using t-test through
(SPSS-16).

Analysis and Findings

To analyze the data t-test (paired sample t-test and independent

sample t-test) was used through SPSS version 16.
Effect of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Achievement in English Tenses 43

Table 1
Pre Experiment Difference between
b Groups
Group N Mean SD t p Effect size
Experimental 30 19.13 7.50 0.07 0.94 0.017
Control 30 19.00 7.18

Table 1 indicates that in pre-test;pre student performance in

experimental and control group was same, meaning both groups did not
significantly differ before the treatment.

Table 2
Post Experiment Difference between
b Groups
Group N Mean SD t P Effect Size
Experimental 30 33.47 10.007 4.164 0.000 1.088
Control 30 24.07 7.270

Table 2 indicates that experimental group significantly performed

better than control group with effect size =1.088. The results of pretest
and posttest tests can be viewed in figure 1.

Figure 1: Pretest posttest Results Comparison

According to Figure 1, both groups demonstrated similar

achievement score and did not significantly differ on pretest; however,
both groups performed better in posttest but it is obvious that
Anwer, Tatlah & Butt 44

experimental group significantly better performed as compared to control

group.

Table 3
Pre-test Post-test
test Difference between Control Group
Group Mean SD t P Effect Size
Present Indefinite Pre-test
test 5.07 2.050
-5.696 0.000 0.849
Present Indefinite Post-test
test 6.93 2.333
Present Continuous Pre--test 5.50 1.943
-1.878 0.070 3.307
Present Continuous Post-test
Post 6.13 2.224
Present Perfect Pre-test 4.27 2.227
-3.379 0.000 0.681
Present Perfect Pre-test 5.93 2.651
Present Perfect Continuous Pre-test
Pre 4.07 2.212
-2.473 0.200 0.43
Present Perfect Continuous Pre-test
Pre 5.03 2.251

Table 3 indicates differences in student achievement on pre-test

test and
post-test
test in control group. Control group students, taught by traditional
learning had higher scores in post-test
post than pre-test.
test. It can be concluded
that increase in students’ achievement in post-test
post was only due to the
continuous teaching as extraneous variables were controlled in the group.

Figure 2: Pretest posttest Differences between Control Group

Effect of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Achievement in English Tenses 45

Figure 2 shows Pre-test

Pre Post-test differences in Control group
performance and we can see that highest difference was seen in Present
Indefinite Tense and smallest difference was found in Present
Continuous Tense.

Table 4
Pretest Posttest Difference between
bet Experimental Groups
Group Mean SD t P Effect Size
Present Indefinite Pre-test
test 5.40 2.312
-7.228 0.000 1.28
Present Indefinite Post-test
test 8.37 2.328
Present Continuous Pre--test 4.83 1.877
-9.717 0.000 1.602
Present Continuous Pre--test 8.80 2.858
Present perfect Pre-test 4.83 2.135
-8.588 0.000 1.422
Present perfect Post-test
test 8.60 3.169
Present Perfect Continuous Pre-test
Pre 4.23 2.402
-9.379 0.000 1.58
Present Perfect Continuous Post-test
Post 8.03 2.606

Table 4 indicates significant differences in experimental group's

scores on pre-test
test and post-test
post for all tenses.

Figure 3: Pretest Posttest Differences between Experimental Group

Figure 3 shows differences in performance of experimental group in

pre-test and post-test.
test. We can see that highest difference is found on
Anwer, Tatlah & Butt 46

Present Continuous Tense while lowest difference is in Present Indefinite

Tense.

Table 5
Post Group Difference between
betwe Experimental and Control Group (N=30)
Group Mean SD t p Effect Size
Present Indefinite Experimental Group 8.37 2.312
2.541 0.014 0.660
Present Indefinite Control Group 6.93 2.050
Present Continuous Experimental Group 8.80 2.858
4.034 0.000 1.050
Present Continuous Control Group 6.13 2.224
Present Perfect Experimental Group 8.60 3.169
3.535 0.001 0.917
Present Perfect Control Group 5.93 2.651
Present Perfect Continuous Experimental
Group 8.03 2.606 4.771 0.000 1.23
Present Perfect Continuous Control Group 5.03 2.251

Table 5 indicates significant differences in performance of experimental

and control group on all tenses. Highest differences were found in
Present Continuous and Present Perfect Continuous Tenses.

Figure 4: Post test difference between experimental and control group

In post-test
test group results of experimental group for all the tense
scores were significantly higher than control group. As experimental
Effect of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Achievement in English Tenses 47

group was treated with cooperative learning; so, students’ achievement in

all tenses can be attributed to cooperative learning.

Conclusion and Discussion

The findings of this study were divided into five steps; i) pre-test
results, ii) post-test results, iii) control group results, iv) experimental
group results and v) post-test results in each tense. Pre-test results were
same for experimental and control group but in post-test results
experimental group students’ achievement was significantly higher than
control group. It was concluded that in cooperative learning method
students outperformed than traditional learning method.
During the extensive review of literature it was found that
cooperative learning was being practiced in western countries as
compared to Pakistan a third world country. Hence, a very few research
studies was found in the local context regarding learning of English as a
second language. So all these critical and hurdles in English provoked
the researcher to test and experiment this new instructional approach in
his own class room. This research study may be helpful to overcome the
problems occur in English and further more cooperative learning may
take place in Pakistan’s curriculum as instructional approach. Thus a
study was designed to investigate the effects of cooperative learning on
students’ achievement in English at secondary level. Several other
research studies have found that same results such as Atashian and
Zamini (2013), Khan (2008), and Kosar (2003). Moreover the results of
this study were strengthened by many other studies which have
investigated the effects of cooperative learning on English language
learning (Jalilifar, 2010; Rahvard, 2010; &Ghorbani, 2012).
A few researches were also found which opposed the cooperative
learning such as Parveen, Mahmood and Mahmood (2011) found that
cooperative learning was not effective in social studies subject for 8th
graders.For rational of cooperative learning as powerful tool in academic
field can proved satisfactory through given researches on different area
of subjects. In arts subject following researchers conducting positive
results in the favour of cooperative learning: Arbab (2003), Kosar
(2003), Satti (2012), Coppola (2007), Pandya, (2011), Acosta and
Marcela (2012), Kadir, (2005), Servetti, (2009) and Sheiki (2012).In the
subject of English following researchers likeJalilifar (2010), Norman,
(2005), Bibi (2002), Ghina (2008), Khan, (2011) and Ghorbani (2012)
found positive results of the cooperative learning on students’
achievement.
Anwer, Tatlah & Butt 48

In the subject of science following researchers conducting positive

results in the favour of cooperative learning: Okebukula and Ogunmigi
(1984), Simsek, (2009), Shachar and Ficher (2004), Conwell (1988),
Lazarowitz and Herts (1994), Chang and Brickman (2006), B-AJB
(2012), Patrick Ajaja (2010), Armstrong, Change and Brick man (2007),
Hanze (2007) and Masood (2012). In the subject of mathematics
following researchers conducting positive results in the favour of
cooperative learning;Whocker, Bol and Nunnery (1997), Jodie Maxe
(2012), Chung Chin and Daud (2010), Van Dat Tran (2012), Vanghan
(2000) and Kola Wola (2008). In the subject of English following
researchers found positive results in the favour of cooperative learning;
Jalilifar (2010), Norman, (2005), Bibi (2002), Ghina (2008), Khan,
(2011) and Ghorbani (2012). Above all researches provide the rationale
for cooperative learning. Learning English tenses through STAD method
of cooperative learning, proved very effective according to analysis of
the data in present study. In control group students’ achievement in all
present tenses of active voice provedbetter in post-test than the pre-test
and it was concluded that it was due to the continuous teaching in control
group because in control group students’ achievement was not found
higher than experimental group. Overall results and findings showed that
cooperative learning improves students' learning in English tenses than
traditional learning.

Recommendations

 Cooperative learning is an effective instructional strategy for

academic achievement particularly for English subject. So for the
implications of this study more researches should be conducted in
other provinces with a diversity of population.
 English language teachers should be trained and motivated to use
cooperative learning as an instructional strategy because language
skills need proper environment for socially interaction.
 Effect of cooperative learning should also be studied with other
variables like self-regulation, self-esteem and self-efficacy other than
achievement.
 Cooperative learning may also be used in local context for the
teaching of other subjects like science and math etc.
Effect of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Achievement in English Tenses 49

References

Acosta, M. (2012). Effect of cooperative learning on academic

achievement of primary pupils: A systematic review.(Unpublished
Master Dissertation), Leiden University.
Adams, M., & Hamm, M. (1990). Cooperative learning, critical thinking
and collaboration across the curriculum. Spring field, IL: Thompson
Publishers.
Adeyemi, A. &Babatunde, O. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning and
problem-solving strategies on junior secondary school students
achievement in social studies. Electronic Journal of Research in
Educational Psychology, 6(3), 691-708.
Arbab. S. (2003). Effects of Cooperative Learning on General Science
Achievement of 9th Class Students (Unpublished Master dissertation).
PAF College of Education for Women, Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Atashian, S. & Zamini, S. (2013). The Effects of cooperative language
learning on Iranian EFL learners’ strategy use. Global Journal of
Foreign Language Teaching, 1, 09-14.
Aziz, Z. (2010). A comparison of CL and conventional teaching on
student achievement in secondary Mathematics. Journal of Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 9, 53-62.
Bukunola , B. A. J &Idowu, O. D. (2012). Effectiveness of Cooperative
Learning Strategies on Nigerian Junior Secondary Students’
Academic Achievement in Basic Science. British Journal of
Education, Society & Behavioural Science, 2(3),307-325.
Conwell, C. R. (1988). Students’ perception when working in
cooperative problem solving groups. Paper presented at North
Carolina Science Teachers Association Convention. Retrieved May
10, 2008 from ERIC. Reproduction No. Ed313455
Flynn, C. (2013). Cooperative learning in secondary math classes.
(Unpublished Doctoral dissertation). The Ever Green state College,
Olympia.
Gaith, G. (2003). Effects of learning together model of cooperative
learning on English as a foreign language: Reading achievements,
academic self-esteem and feeling of school alienation. Bilingual
Research Journal, 27(3), 459-461.
Anwer, Tatlah & Butt 50

Ghorbani, M. R. (2012). Cooperative learning boosts EFL students’

grammar achievement. Theory and practice in language studies,
2(7), 1465-1471.
Iqbal, M. (2004). Effect of cooperative learning on academic
achievement of secondary school students in Mathematics
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Arid Agriculture,
Rawalpindi, Pakistan.
Jalilifar, A. (2010). Effect of CL technique on college students reading
comprehension. International Journal of Educational Technology
and Applied Linguistics, 38(1), 96-108.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning
work. Theory into practice, 38(2), 67-73.
Kadir, S.A., Luan, W.S., Pihie, Z.A.L., Yaacob, N.F., Tarmizi, R.A. &
Elias, H. (2005). The effects of cooperative learning strategy.
Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 3(4), 121-131.
Khan, M. A. (2012). Effects of Cooperative Learning on Academic
Achievement and Self-Esteem of 9th Grade Biology
Students. (Doctoral dissertation), University of the Punjab, Lahore.
Khan, S. A. (2008). An experimental study to evaluate the effectiveness of
cooperative learning versus traditional learning method. (Doctoral
dissertation), International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan.
Kosar, R. (2003). An experimental study on effects of cooperative learning
on social studies achievement among 7th class students. (Master’s
thesis). PAF College of Education for Women, Rawalpindi.
Lazarowitz, R., & Hertz, B. H. (1994). Learning science in cooperative
setting: Academic achievement and affective outcomes. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 31, 1121-1131.
Murray, F. B. (1982). Teaching through social conflict. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 7, 257–271.
Norman, G. D. (2005). Using STAD in an EFL Elementary school classroom
in south Kores: Effects on student Achievement, motivation and
Attitudes towards cooperative Learning. Asian EFL Journal, 14(1), 69-87.
Pan, C.Y. & Wu, H. Y. (2013). The cooperative learning effects on
english reading comprehension and learning motivation of EFL
freshmen. English Language Teaching, 6(5), 13-27.
Effect of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Achievement in English Tenses 51

Parveen, Q., Mahmood, T. S., & Mahmood, A. D. (2011). Effects of

cooperative learning on academic Achievement of 8th grade students
in the subject of social studies. International Journal of Academic
Research, 3(1), 950-954.
Rahvard, Z. J. (2010). Cooperative learning strategies and reading
comprehension. California Linguistic Notes, 2, 1-15.
Servetti, S. (2010). Cooperative learning as a correction and grammar
revision technique: Communicative exchanges, self-correction rates
and scores. US-China Education Review, 7(4), 12-22.
Servetti, S. (2009). Cooperative learning as a correction and grammar
revision technique: Communicative exchanges, self-correction rates
and scores. US-China Education Review, 7(4), 12-22.
Shachar, H., & Fischer, S. (2004). Cooperative Learning and the
achievement of motivation and perception of students in 11th grade
Chemistry classes. Journal of Learning and Instruction, 14(1), 69-87.
Sharan, Y., &Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through
group investigation. Colchester, VT: Teachers College Press.
Sheikhi A., Zainalipoor H., & Jamri M. (2012). An Investigation into the
effect of cooperative learning with focus on Jigsaw Technique on the
academic achievement of 2nd-Grade Middle School Students.
Journal of Life Science and Biomedicine, 2(2): 21-24.
Siddiqui, S. (2003). Collaborative approach to language learning. Dawn.
Simsek, U. (2009). The affects of animation and cooperative learning on
Chemistry students’ academic achievement and conceptual
understanding about aqueous solutions. World Applied Science
Journal, 7(1), 24-33.
Slavin, R. E. (1991). Cooperative learning and group contingencies,
Journal of Behavioral Education, 1(1), 105-15.
Slavin, R. E. (1994). Using students learning (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD:
John Hopkins University.
Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and
practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Anwer, Tatlah & Butt 52

Tran, V. D., & Lewis, R. (2012). effects of cooperative learning on

students at an Giang University in Vietnam. International Education
Studies, 5(1), 86-99.
Vaughan, W. (2000). Effects of cooperative learning on achievement and
attitude among students of color. Journal of Educational Research,
95(6), 359-365.
Wola, K. (2008). Effect of competitive and CL strategies on academic
performance of Nigerian students in Mathematics. Educational
Research and Review,3(1), 33-37.
Woolfolk, A. (2004). Education psychology. (9th ed.). New Delhi:
Dorling Kinders.
Wyk, M.M. (2010). The effects of teams-Games-tournaments on
achievement, retention, and attitudes of economics education
students. Journal of Social Sciences, 26(3), 183-193.
Wyk, M.M. (2012). Effects of STAD-Cooperative learning on students’
achievement, attitude and motivation in Economic education.
Journal of Social Sciences,32(2), 261-270.
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.
Zamanian, M. and Bagheri, S.M. (2013). The effect of cooperative
learning approach on Iranian EFL students’ achievement among
different majors in general English course. International Journal of
Linguistics, 5(6), 1-11.
Zloltnik, J.M. (2012). The impact of cooperative learning on achievement
in eighth grade mathematics students (Unpublished master thesis).
[
Carroll University Waukesha, Wisconsin.

Citation of this Article:

Anwer, M., Tatlah, I.A., & Butt, I. H. (2018). Effect of cooperative
learning on students’ achievement in English tenses. Pakistan Journal of
Education, 35(2), 37-52, DOI: 10.30971/pje.v35i2.541.g138.
To link this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.30971/pje.v35i2.541.

Received on: January 02, 2018

Revised on: June 28, 2018
Accepted on: July 06, 2018
Effect of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Achievement in English Tenses 53