1

CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND IT'S BACKGROUND

INTRODUCTION
Collaborative learning can occur peer to peer or in larger groups. Peer

learning or peer instruction is a type of collaborative learning that involves

students working in pairs or small groups to discuss concepts, or find solution

problems.

Collaborative learning as an instructional method characterized as a

method of supporting the development of important knowledge creation skills and

increasingly being used at all level of educational systems. In the public

discourse, the term collaborative learning is often misleadingly used to refer any

learning activities that pairs or group of people perform together.

Collaborative learning can be an effective method to motivate students,

encourage active learning and develop key critical thinking, communication, and

decision making skills. But without careful planning and facilitation, collaborative

learning can frustrate students and instructors and feel like a waste of time.

Some people prefer to work individually and others in teams or groups.

This study characterized successful learning in and through collaboration

as the sum of multidimensional cognitive, social and emotional processes at both

individual and group levels, which are effectively coordinated and regulated in

interaction between the group members. Therefore, the general objective of this

study is to combine the socio-cognitive (i.e knowledge co-construction and

1
 2

monitor evolving understanding) and socio-emotional (monitoring emotional

experiences and expression of emotion) dimensions to explore collaborative

learning activities, student’s individual interpretations of their activities and the

possible influence of these activities have on collaboration and learning.

Statement of the problem

This study aims to determine the difference of Pre- test and Post-test in

Controlled and Experimental Group. Specifically it will answer the following

questions:

1. What is the respondent profile of?

A. Gender

B. Age

C. Year level

D. Number of siblings

E. (PHEA) Parent’s highest educational attainment

F. Family monthly income

G. Group

H. Pre-test score

I. Post-test score

J. Increment Score

2. Is there a significant difference between pre-test and post test scores of

students in the control and experimental group?

3. Is there a significant difference between the increment scores of students

in the control group and experimental group?

 3

Hypothesis

1. There is no significant difference between pre-test and post-test score of

students in the control group and experimental group

2. There is no significant difference between the increment scores

Significance of the study

The following group of people that would benefit in this research:

Students for them to know which they prefer to do, group or solo activity.

Teachers for them to know how to instruct their students accurately.

Scope and delimitation

This study intended to find out the difference of pre-test and post-test

score of students in the control group and experimental group. The area of the

study is in Cuyapo National High School.

Definition of terms

Group Activity a method used by professional social workers, of aiding a group

or members of a groups toward individual adjustment and increased participation

in community activity by exploiting the mechanism of group work.

Solo Activity independent commercial or production of any nature

Collaborative learning is an educational approach to teaching and learning that

involves groups of students working together to solve a problem, complete a task

or create a product.
 4

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDY

RELATED LITERATURE

FOREIGN

There has been an increased reference to cooperative learning in both the

literature and government documents since the implementation of Curriculum

2005 in South Africa. One of the major underlying philosophies of Curriculum

2005 is Outcomes-Based Education (OBE). Teaching in the new curriculum

therefore places a great emphasis on the achievement of learning outcomes.

Almost in all references to cooperative learning in official education documents,

cooperative learning is believed to help in the acquisition of learning outcomes.

Since the implementation of Curriculum 2005 in 1998 (Northern Province

Department of Education 2001:5), several schools were selected by the

department of education for intense support in the testing of the implementation

of the curriculum. These schools are often referred to as “pilot schools”.

Teachers in pilot schools are given in-service training (INSET)which focus,

among others, on the use of cooperative learning in the classroom. It is expected

therefore that at a minimum, all pilot schools in South Africa should be capable of

teaching using cooperative learning as one of the teaching strategies.

According to Roth and Roychoudhury (1993:143), cooperative learning is

the convenient way to support the construction of individual knowledge of the

members in a variety of ways. When learners are required to explain, elaborate,

4
 5

or defend their position, they construct a deep understanding because they have

to evaluate, integrate, and elaborate upon their existing knowledge. Learning

through cooperative problem solving gives rise to insights and solutions that

would not come about without them. This view is supported by Hertz-Lazarowitz,

Baird and Lazarowitz (1994:70) and Wise(1996:338), when they indicate that

cooperative learning creates a classroom learning environment which contributes

to the positive perception pupils have towards social and cognitive aspects of the

learning process, since learners are able to make more friends and practice more

helping behaviour. They hold that cooperative learning creates a classroom

environment in which learners listen to each other, develop love for peers,

exchange ideas and be on task most of the time. Learners learn to cooperate

and cooperate to learn. They also come to feel for their classmates.

Communication abilities of listening and questioning as well as the learner’s

polite interaction are improved. Since cooperative learning requires learners to

be both physically and mentally engaged, it makes them to construct knowledge.

Theoretical Foundation of Collaborative Learning Work done by Vygotsky

and Cole (1978) and Wenger (1999) shows the influence of social perspectives

on language learning. One of the underlying assumptions in this type of research

approach is that language learning and social interaction, particularly with more

advanced learners, cannot be separated; the one, social interaction, supports

and enhances the other, language learning. Before further discussion of how

collaborative learning actually works within a virtual learning environment, it will

be useful to review the theory on which collaborative learning is based.

 6

Constructivism describes the development of knowledge through learning

as a process of active construction of meanings in relation to the context and

environment in which learning takes place. A learner‟s understanding of content

is embedded in the experience of that individual (Brown and Collins, 1989). In the

19th century, objectivists believed in the existence of reliable knowledge about

the world (Jonassen, 1991) which was received by learners passively from

authoritative sources, lectures or in written format from text books. In such a

model, learning took place in classrooms and the primary concern of educational

institutions consisted in transferring knowledge as an integral, self-sufficient

substance, comprising abstract, decontextualised, formal concepts (Brown and

Collins, 1989). By the turn of the century, Piaget had begun to centre

constructivism research on a developmental model, mapping how individuals at

different ages, developed cognitive abilities. Knowledge about the environment,

about the external world, is organized into mental frameworks or Schemata by

the learner. For instance, children develop frameworks (schemata) as they

organize their knowledge into increasingly complex cognitive structures. Children

actively seek out information and adapt it to the knowledge and conceptions of

the world that they already have. Thus, children construct their understanding of

reality from their own experience. Piaget focused primarily on the individual

child’s development. As Oxford (1997b:39) points out, “Piaget recognized that all

this happens within a social context, but he was not particularly concerned about

the social aspect.” It remained for the socio-constructivists to research and clarify
 7

the ways in which individual development are connected to social development,

and how the one affects the other.

Several definitions of cooperative learning have been formulated. The one

most widely used in higher education is probably that of David and Roger

Johnson of the University of Minnesota. According to the Johnson & Johnson

(1998) model, cooperative learning is instruction that involves students working in

teams to accomplish a common goal, under conditions that include the following

elements: positive interdependence wherein team members are obliged to rely

on one another to achieve the goal, if any team members fail to do their part,

everyone suffers consequences; individual accountability where all students in a

group are held accountable for doing their share of the work and for mastery of

all of the material to be learned; face-to-face promotive interaction wherein

although some of the group work may be parcelled out and done individually,

some must be done interactively, with group members providing one another with

feedback, challenging reasoning and conclusions, and perhaps most importantly,

teaching and encouraging one another; appropriate use of collaborative skills

where the students are encouraged and helped to develop and practice trust-

building, leadership, decision-making, communication, and conflict management

skills and group processing where the team members set group goals,

periodically assess what they are doing well as a team, and identify changes they

will make to function more effectively in the future (Felder & Brent, 2007).

It is an organized group learning activity so that learning is dependent on

the socially constructed exchange of information between learners in groups and

 8

in which each learner is held accountable for his or her own learning and is

motivated to increase the learning of others (Ghorbani & Nezamoshari’e, 2012).

In cooperative learning approach, the students obtain social skills through

participating in group activities. Group is where the students learn how to listen

when the others are speaking. Also, in group they practice self-control. They

learn when to start talking and not to interrupt the others. They learn to speak

slowly and make eye contacts with the others. They learn to listen to the others'

views and respect them. They are taught to criticize the opinions and not those

who develop them. They learn to view the problems from the others' viewpoints.

They are taught to accept the criticisms and tolerate the opponents' views. All of

the afore-mentioned skills are taught practiced in groups and are gradually

internalized in the individuals (Lavasani, Afzali & Afzali, 2011).

A large body of research has demonstrated the benefits of collaborative

learning strategies (Schroeder et al, 2007). These benefits include student

reports that team work is beneficial, motivating (Bartle, Dook, & Mocerino, 2011),

and confidence- and responsibility-building (Caulfield & Persell, 2006; Dingel et.

al, 2013).

While reinforcing the cooperative morale and friendship among the

students as well as their social growth have been discussed, but in effect there

has been done not only any effectivestep towards achieving that but often

cooperation and friendship have been replaced by competition resulting the

increase of jealousy, grudge, and enmity among the students (Keramati,2005;

Lavasani, Afzali & Afzali, 2011).

 9

This cooperation promotes and enhances learning, however, it cannot be

forgotten that the implementation of cooperative learning and development

requires a complex and slow process that requires a lot of activities by the

teacher (guide students, forming groups, structuring the learning task, evaluating

collaborative learning, etc..) and a series of specific resources. To help teachers

in the structuring of the activities required to perform the set of skills involved in

cooperative learning in the university these techniques have been used by

various disciplines (Gil & Jurado, 2011).

Cooperative learning may be especially effective with students from

diverse cultural backgrounds, students with limited English proficiency, and

students with disabilities (Cartledge & Kourea, 2008), because it makes

instruction relevant and responsive to students’ experiences, cultural

perspectives, language backgrounds, and developmental levels (Diaz-Rico &

Weed, 2010; Gollnick & Chinn, 2009; Nunnery, Chappell, Arnold, 2013).

A cooperative classroom should not be teacher-centered and “Ideally,

teachers are trained to take their existing lessons and restructure them to be

cooperative as cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so

that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning”

(Johnson & Johnson, 2008; Marashi & Dibah, 2013).

Cooperative learning methods engage teachers in structuring their math

classrooms to provide a learning context that is social, interactive, and highly

engaging. These structures have been proven effective in enhancing important

cognitive and affective constructs that contribute to learning and motivation for a
 10

range of diverse students (e.g., Barbato, 2000; Johnson & Johnson, 2009; Reid,

1992; Slavin & Karweit, 1985; Slavin, Lake & Groff, 2009; Slavin, Madden, &

Leavey, 1984; Suyanto, 1998; Zakaria, Lu Chung & Daud, 2010; Nunnery,

Chappell, Arnold, 2013).

Kagan cooperative learning structures enable students to work as teams,

partner, and classmate. These structures empower learners to work together for

learning language. The students learn multiple ways to solve language problem

and learn to tackle a language challenge as a group. These structures prepare

happy place for learners and students so they don’t feel tired (Mohammad

davoudi & Mahinpo, 2012).

Learning could be best acquired in a situation where students can easily

adapt to the atmosphere that encourages active participation and cooperation

among members of the class. Mauladin (2013) stated that it is important to

provide a method of learning about the good and the bad, what should and what

should not be done when one is in a shared living environment. Learning method

provides not only moral ethics against fellow human beings, but also knowledge

of the ethics of the environment.

Stability of utilizing and bringing advances to classroom instruction

involves facilities and infrastructures that would support the maintenance of any

computer-based teaching. Acquiring software application for laboratory courses

of the students would provide hands-on experience for them to learn directly

certain skills. Teachers are required to attend training and workshop to maximize

fully the features of educational technology. Learning to adapt the environment

 11

and operations of a certain computer application would be somehow difficult

especially to those baby boomers who are not really inclined with the new trends

of digital natives.

Problems occurred in the inconsistency of integrating technology-driven

teaching strategies which become the major issue which was confronted by

underlying concerns under the institutional, departmental and student factors

(Bay, 2013) in keeping the delivery of instruction interactive. Sustaining the

learning environment with appropriate application of technology is necessary to

promote innovation in bringing real life scenarios into classroom setting. Recent

developments in instructional technology and multimedia learning environments

indicate the need for new requirements or strategies for designers and

developers who are responsible for developing project management and the

planning of learning processes in education and industry (Ipek & Sözcü, 2014).

Making it consistent would provide better knowledge and understanding on the

discipline and better satisfaction on the delivery of instruction with student

outputs as evidence of learning experience. Students would realize the benefit of

utilizing technology as major instrument to the development of their skills and

competencies. Mauladin (2013) stressed the selection of appropriate learning

methods where teachers can develop young naturalist intelligence and

knowledge that foster the children to about their environment.

Individual student performance was superior when cooperative methods

were used as compared with competitive or individualistic methods. The

performance outcomes measured include knowledge acquisition, retention,

 12

accuracy, creativity in problem solving, and higher-level reasoning. Other studies

show that cooperative learning is superior for promoting metacognitive thought,

persistence in working toward a goal, transfer of learning from one setting to

another, time on task, and intrinsic motivation (Felder & Brent, 2007).

Teachers can control the environment during the learning process through

observation and maintaining the active involvement and enthusiasm of the

learners is important consideration to sustain the cooperative learning approach

and attain necessary course outcomes. Everyone is being held accountable and

socially responsible to any consequence that would occur in the team. Making

them aware of their contribution to the attainment of the goal would provide better

understanding of what to accomplish.

The degree programs integrate the core values of the university, as well

as puts a premium on the seven learning outcomes that include communication

skills, computer literacy creative & analytical thinking information retrieval - and

evaluation teamwork & leadership entrepreneurial skills proactive and spiritual

values aside from the competencies that meet local and international standards

in the various tourism and hospitality sectors (Mejia et al., 2014). The industry-

partners have very high regards in the competencies of the graduates in terms of

the relevance of their knowledge and skills in research and work discipline,

communication skills, computer skills while entrepreneurial skills obtained the

least (Laguador& Ramos, 2014). These are being measured as important

characteristics of graduates that the students need to possess through assessing

their academic performance based on outcomes.

 13

In cooperative learning approach, it is very important to inform the students of

the criteria on how they would be rated by the teachers, therefore, rubric should

be formulated so that the learners are guided of their participation and the

expectation on their academic performance would also be enhanced.

Student’s achievement are also often called a specific statement of what

will be known and can be done by the students, as a result of learning, which is

usually in the form of knowledge, skills, or attitudes (Louis, 1994; Slameto, 2013).

Those students learn through an active learning approach not only learn better

but also enjoy much more from the learning experience (Lavasani, Afzali & Afzali,

2011).

The students are reluctant in cooperating effectively into group works;

which is a matter of rising concerns in the success of the cooperative learning. In

such circumstances some students are compelled to take all the responsibilities,

while the others are avoiding any engagement due to group works (Nam &

Zellner, 2011; Korkmaz & Yesil, 2011; Altun & Korkmaz, 2012 ).

The attitude level of the computer and electrical-electronics engineering

are found to be high. The main reason behind this finding is believed to be the

positive attitude acquired by the students in cooperative working environment

which is usually common in engineering faculties. On the other hand, the attitude

of the 4th year students towards cooperative learning is found to be meaningfully

different compared to the attitude of the 1st year students (Altun .& Korkmaz,

2012)
 14

Many teachers and scholars emphasize the importance of collaborative

learning. However, it is a challenge to assess team work in an effective and

equitable way (Dingel et. al, 2013). Collaborative educational work can be

conceptualized along a continuum from casual classroom use, to intentional and

structured activities, to those designed to support “high performance” teams that

“engage in significant learning tasks” (Fink, 2002; Dingel et. al, 2013).

Collaborative learning includes a variety of activities spanning from instructors

pairing up students and having them share with one another or complete simple

cooperative exercises (Rao & DiCarlo, 2000) to creating “learning teams” that

work together for an extended time to complete more complex learning activities

(Dingel et. al, 2013)

Cooperative learning promotes thought provoking and interactive

environment for the students. The instruction and activities based on cooperative

learning are creative, thought provoking and interactive and offer ideas for how

the children can live the value in practice and find the answers from within

themselves. Cooperative learning can be utilized to enhance and promote higher

student achievement. The purpose of this article is to analyze the effects of

cooperative learning in a classroom to see its impact on student learning. Also,

elements of cooperative learning are discussed and its influence on student

achievement (Iyer, 2013).

One fear many instructors have about cooperative learning is that when

students' grades are affected by the achievement of their group-mates, the

students will believe that the grading practices are unfair. When positive outcome
 15

interdependence is structured within learning groups, achievement is greater

than when students work individualistically on their own. In addition, cooperative

experiences resulted in more positive attitudes toward classical music and own

musical skills and no change in desire to teach music to elementary school

students (Hwong et al., 1993; Iyer, 2013).

Cooperative learning, when instituted and successfully practiced, creates

a microcosm of equity in a group. When striving to teach students to create,

monitor, and evaluate the equity in their cooperative group, teachers teach them

how to begin to create a just society. Cooperation thus is humanity’s strongest

asset and hope (Cohen et al., 2004; Iyer, 2013). Cooperative learning has been

widely embraced by mathematics teachers as well as for literacy learning.

Cooperative learning is a great tool that can be used to improve student

achievement in any classroom. It also fosters tolerance and acceptance in the

community, which improves quality of everybody's life. Multiple researches have

shown that cooperative learning strategies can be utilized to promote deeper

understanding. Educators can use various strategies of cooperative learning

along with their instructional techniques to enhance learning in a classroom. This

will result in higher student achievement.

LOCAL

According to some teachers, the K-12 curriculum is one of the best

curriculum's implemented in the field of education because it is standard based;

spiral approach with a complete package of competencies supported with

 16

modules and other instructional materials and most of all a child/student centered

policy.

In the implementation of this curriculum, many teachers are amazed and

happy because it lessens their burden and tedious work in making and writing

lesson plans because they prepare only teaching notes and session plan

provided with reflections as the main part. Other than that, we offer lots of effort

and sacrifices to the learners but in the real situations 25 percent of the whole

class are slow learners and they have difficulty with the new styles of teaching.

Our school implemented the ICL Program once a week to cope up the 25 percent

students with patience and motivation following orders on the curriculum of

student centered policy with teachers as facilitator and manager of learning

inside and outside the classroom.

Integrative and Cooperative Learning (ICL) is the strategy of teachers in

the classroom that is used to increase motivation, attention, retention and mean

percentage score (MPS) of students in their different examination in school and it

will serve as positive image of self and others which provide a vehicle for critical

thinking and problem solving and encourage social skills on the part of the

learners as main objective of the program.

RELATED STUDIES

FOREIGN

Lawrence Lyman and Harvey Foyle (1991) studied “Teaching Geography

Using Cooperative Learning” The study discusses cooperative learning as a

 17

means of teaching geography. It also urges production of a positive classroom

climate by using group builders and cooperative projects. The study suggests

projects involving maps, community study, and bulletin boards. The study argues

that students in cooperative learning become more involved in the subject and

more motivated to learn content. The principles of cooperative learning can be

and should be applied to the teaching of geography. When cooperative learning

is used, students become more involved in the subject and more motivated to

learn content. Geographic knowledge can increase among U.S. students when

they are more motivated to learn. A variety of cooperative learning lessons can

bring about that motivation and increase in knowledge.

Fred John Brandt (1995) studied “The effects of cooperative learning on

achievement and self-esteem of high school students with learning disabilities”

This study was undertaken to examine the effectiveness of cooperative learning

vs. traditional non-cooperative learning on the self-esteem and academic

achievement of 74 urban high school students in grades 9-12 with learning

disabilities in self-contained mathematics, English, English as a Second

Language (ESL), Spanish, and science classes. In Traditional teaching methods

students work individually or competitively often do not work with children with

learning disabilities, resulting in low self-esteem and limited academic

achievement. Too many students with learning disabilities are not prepared to

meet the demands and challenges of the 21st century. Six experimental classes

were taught the regular high school curriculum in each subject area using

cooperative learning and six control classes were taught the same material using
 18

traditional non-cooperative methods for 15 weeks. The same subject teacher

taught the same material to one experimental group and one control group. The

Piers-Harris Children's Self Concept Scale was used to measure self-esteem at

the beginning and end of the term. The New York State Regents Competency

Tests and the New York State Second Language Proficiency Examination in

Spanish were used to test standardized academic achievement. Teacher-made

tests of specific topics measured criterion-referenced academic achievement. In

addition, daily discussions with teachers and whole class open-ended

discussions with students immediately after post-testing added qualitative

insights. Information gained in these discussions allowed there searcher to

assess student attitudes regarding the traditional and cooperative learning

experiences. Analyses of covariance indicated no significant differences between

the groups' posttest scores for both overall and academic self-esteem. The

results of t tests yielded significant differences in favor of the cooperative learning

classes on standardized and criterion-referenced academic achievement. The

study concluded that cooperative learning is an effective method for teaching

high school students with learning disabilities.

Hertzog and Lieble (1996) investigated “A Study of Two Techniques for

Teaching Introductory Geography: Traditional Approach versus Cooperative

Learning in the University Classroom”.

This study was a collaborative effort between the geography area of the

College of Arts and Sciences and the Department of Educational Leadership at

Valdosta State University. The project was conducted to determine whether

 19

students in an introductory course would benefit from the use of cooperative

learning groups based on their learning styles, hemisphericity, and gender

compared to students taught with a traditional lecture/inquiry approach. Students

who enrolled in World Regional Geography were separated into a control class,

which utilized the traditional lecture/inquiry approach, and an experimental class,

which implemented the cooperative learning approach. Both classes began with

40 students and were taught during the mid-morning hours by the same two

professors. Although no significant gain was realized at the conclusion of the

study, 36 students remained in the experimental class while only 26 students

remained in the control class.

Judith (1996) studied “Effects of Cooperative Learning Among Hispanic

Students in Elementary Social Studies” Although research has indicated that

cooperative learning enhances student achievement, promotes self-esteem, and

improves interpersonal relations, few studies have focused on cooperative

learning in elementary social studies. There is a close affinity between the goals

of citizenship education and social skills promoted by cooperative learning. This

investigation determined differences between achievement and self-esteem of

Hispanic fourth graders who received instruction using cooperative learning or

traditional instruction. Results indicated higher achievement with cooperative

learning. Although self-esteem was apparently higher for boys than for girls,

regardless of treatment, this result was inconclusive. Making connections

between social studies goals and cooperative learning offers a valuable tool for

improving social studies education.

 20

Christine Kim-Eng Lee (1998) studied “Effects of cooperative learning

structures on self-esteem and classroom climate in social studies”. This study

reports on a study which involves the implementation of cooperative learning in a

social studies classroom. The effects of cooperative learning on the self-esteem

of pupils and classroom climate were investigated. Interviews with pupils and the

experimental teacher were also conducted. Results showed that there was no

significant effect of cooperative learning on the self-esteem of the pupils in the

experimental group. However, there was a significant effect on the Difficulty

subscale of the classroom climate of the experimental group. Pupils' and

teacher's interviews showed favorable attitudes among pupils towards the use of

cooperative learning in social studies lessons.

Korkmaz (1996) studied “The Impact of Blended Learning Model On

Student Attitudes Towards Geography Course And Their Critical Thinking

Dispositions And Levels”.

The study aimed to determine the impact of blended learning model on

student attitudes towards Geography course and their critical thinking

dispositions and skills. An experimental pattern with pretest-posttest control

group was used in the study. The study group consists of a total of 57 students –

28 in the experiment group and 29 in the control group – at Kırşehir High School.

The experiment group was subject to hybrid learning through the Geography web

page, while thetraditional learning model was used for the control group. The

data were collected through literature review, the Geography Attitude Scale, and

the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory with Cronbach Alpha values
 21

of 0.92 and 0.88, respectively. The data were then subjected to percentage,

arithmetic mean, t-test, ANOVA, Scheffé and Pearson correlation tests and the

results were interpreted (p<0.05). As a results: Blended learning model

contributed more to student attitudes toward geography course when compared

to the traditional learning model; blended learning model contributed more to

student critical dispositions and levels when compared to the traditional learning

model; and there was a positive correlation between student attitudes toward

geography course and their critical thinking dispositions and levels.

Abu (1997) studied “The Effects Of Cooperative Learning Methods On

Achievement, Retention, And Attitudes Of Home Economics Students In North

Carolina”

The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of the cooperative

learning approach of Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) on the

achievement of content knowledge, retention, and attitudes toward the teaching

method. Cooperative learning was compared to non-cooperative (competitive)

learning classroom structure using a quasi-experimental design. An achievement

test, consisting of items from the state competency test-item bank for the course,

and an attitude questionnaire were administered immediately following instruction

on the unit of special nutritional needs. A retention test was administered three

weeks following the achievement test. California Achievement Test scores and

first semester grades in home economics classes were used as covariates to

adjust for possible preexisting differences between the groups. Multivariate

analysis of covariance showed no significant difference among the dependent

 22

variables (achievement and retention) between the teaching methods used.

There was also no significant difference in student attitudes toward the teaching

methods.

Melinda Karnes et. al. (1997) studied “Using Cooperative Learning

Strategies To Improve Literacy Skills in Social Studies”

This study argues that the use of cooperative learning strategies in social

studies instruction represents a natural match of method and substance. That is,

cooperative learning provides the perfect vehicle for helping children understand

experience many of the essential concepts and values embedded in the social

studies curriculum. This study focuses primarily on how classroom teachers can

instruct their students in essential reading and writing skills while using social

studies as the medium for discussion. A brief, illustrative review of the empirical

literature on the use of cooperative learning approaches in social studies is

followed by a general overview of representative cooperative learning methods

and a more in-depth description of a few specific reading and writing applications.

Other potential applications of cooperative learning procedures are described as

well.

Don (1997) studied “Social skilling through cooperative learning. The lack

of social skills on the part of some school students has been identified as one

contributory factor in student misbehaviour. Experience and theoretical studies

indicate that corrective models of behaviour management are not, in themselves,

sufficient. Research suggests that cooperative learning contributes to the

fostering of social skills in students of all ages. The first investigator implemented
 23

a 10-week programme of cooperative learning in a class of 10-12-year-olds, to

develop their social skills alongside their academic skills. Classroom activities

provided specific training in, and required pupils to use and monitor the use of,

identified social skills. Task-oriented skills included sharing, persuading and

managing time; and person-oriented skills covered being positive, valuing others

and conflict resolution. Pupils worked in pairs, and later in larger groups, with

each pupil responsible for a specific academic or social task. Although the period

of the study (10 weeks) was too short to make any generalized claims, there was

evidence of social growth. Social interactions became noticeably more varied

and students agreed to work in assigned groups, even when they did not like

some members of the group. This willingness to engage with those outside the

immediate friendship groups was observed to carry over into playground

activities. The interpersonal relationships of previously isolated students

improved, both with their peers and with the teacher. There were also benefits in

terms of student behaviour. The responsibility associated with a group role made

students focus on their task more consistently and, in some cases, the group had

a positive influence on the behaviour of 'difficult' students.

Banerjee and Vidyapati (1997) studied “Effect of lecture and cooperative

learning strategies on achievement in chemistry in undergraduate classes”

A comparative study of the effect of lecture and cooperative learning

strategies on achievements in general chemistry at the undergraduate level was

undertaken with 68 first-semester students in a teacher preparation course. The

overall achievement scores were similar in the two classes following different
 24

learning strategies. The achievement scores were not influenced significantly by

subject background (mathematics or biology) and gender.

Christine Kim-Eng Lee; Tock-Keng Lim; Maureen Ng (1997) studied

“Affective Outcomes of Cooperative Learning in Social Studies”

This study reports an experimental study involving the use of cooperative

learning in a social studies classroom. The outcome variables discussed in the

study are pupil self-esteem and classroom climate. Over the period of the study,

cooperative learning did not significantly improve the self-esteem of the pupils.

However, pupils in the experimental group who were taught through the

cooperative learning approach perceived class work to be less difficult than the

control pupils who worked individually. The control pupils also reported a decline

in satisfaction with class work and perceived more friction in their class.

Interviews with the teacher and pupils showed favorable attitudes toward

cooperative learning.

Rehana Schrueder (1998) studied “Cooperative Learning as an Approach to

Learning Science”

The focus of the study is on findings of a research inquiry into the

implementation of cooperative learning using action research. Cooperative

learning research has gone through a series of phases representing different

orientations of research, including research into the value of cooperative learning

and the generation and evaluation of models of cooperative learning; using

statistical input-intervention-output design and, more recently, looking at

 25

interactions that occurred in small learning groups. In this inquiry action research

offered a way of examining more closely the process of introducing, maintaining

and understanding cooperative learning in a multicultural science class.

Qualitative analysis used evidence which was in the form of texts from sources

which included classroom observation, student reflective notes, a research diary

and interviews, among others. The analysis involved the writing of descriptive-

interpretive reports which were used to formulate analytic theme reports.

Propositions were developed from these reports and recommendations made on

the basis of these propositions.

Strom (1998) studied “Student Participation In The Evaluation Of

Cooperative Learning”

Cooperative learning is intended to maximize the understanding of class

material and the acquisition of teamwork skills. To attain these goals, students

must be individually accountable and credited for efforts to help their team. The

Peer and Self-Evaluation System informs teachers about group interaction from

the student point of view. More specifically, this system enables students to

identify and record the attitudes and skills demonstrated by teammates and

themselves in group work. Based upon these observations, which are kept

anonymous, each student gets confidential feedback regarding personal

strengths and limitations. This approach has been utilized in most subject matter

areas and appears suitable for meeting the developmental needs of students

from middle school through college level education.

 26

Kluge, David. (1999) studied “A Brief Introduction to Cooperative Learning

Cooperative learning is defined as a group learning activity organized so that

learning is dependent on the socially structured exchange of information between

learners in groups, in which each learner is held accountable for his or her own

learning, and is motivated to increase the learning of others. Each of the several

key elements of cooperative education is discussed, including: positive

interdependence (which includes positive goal, resource, reward, identity, role,

and outside enemy interdependence); team formation; accountability; social skills;

structures and structuring; distributed leadership; group autonomy; group

processing; and face-to-face interaction. The research section provides a brief

overview of the research comparing and contrasting cooperative learning

methods with competitive and individualistic learning, concluding that cooperative

learning yielded superior outcomes. The five most common models of

cooperative learning (the structural approach; group investigation; student team

investigation; curriculum packages; learning together) are then briefly described.

Teachers can choose one of the models described but may be better off adopting

and adapting parts of several models to create their own model of cooperative

learning that best fits their teaching style and situation.

Johnson, Johnson and Stanne (2000) stated that this combination of

theory, research, and practice makes cooperative learning a powerful learning

procedure. But this does not mean that all practices of cooperative learning will

be effective in maximizing achievement. Different types of cooperative learning

methods are being used. Hence educators have very little guidance as to which
 27

specific cooperative learning methods will be more effective in different situation.

They had examined four issues on their research. The first issue is how much

research has been conducted to validate specific cooperative learning

procedures. The second issue investigated is how many different cooperative

learning methods have been evaluated. The third issue investigated is how

effective are the different cooperative methods in maximizing achievement. The

fourth issue investigated is the characteristics of the more effective cooperative

learning methods. The study shows that cooperative learning is essential for

maximizing learning and ensuring healthy cognitive and social development as

well as many other important instructional outcomes. Hundreds of research

studies demonstrate that cooperative learning result in higher individual

achievement than competitive or individualistic learning. Cooperative learning is

used throughout the world by educators. The combination of theory, research

and practice had made cooperative learning one of the most outstanding of all

instructional practices.

Johnson and Stanne (2000) studied “Cooperative Learning Methods: A

Meta-Analysis”

Cooperative learning is one of the most widespread and fruitful areas of theory,

research, and practice in education. Reviews of the research, however, have

focused either on the entire literature which includes research conducted in non-

educational settings or have included only a partial set of studies that may or

may not validly represent the whole literature. There has never been a

comprehensive review of the research on the effectiveness in increasing

 28

achievement of the methods of cooperative learning used in schools. An

extensive search found 164 studies investigating eight cooperative learning

methods. The studies yielded 194 independent effect sizes representing

academic achievement. All eight cooperative learning methods had a significant

positive impact on student achievement. When the impact of cooperative learning

was compared with competitive learning, Learning Together (LT) promoted the

greatest effect, followed by Academic Controversy (AC), Student- Team-

Achievement-Divisions(STAD),Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT), Group

Investigation (GI), Jigsaw, Teams-Assisted-Individualization (TAI), and finally

Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC). When the impact of

cooperative lessons was compared with individualistic learning, LT promotes the

greatest effect, followed by AC, GI, TGT, TAI, STAD, Jigsaw, and CIRC. The

consistency of the results and the diversity of the cooperative learning methods

provide strong validation for its effectiveness.

Klein and Schnackenberg (2000) studied “Effects of Informal Cooperative

Learning and the Affiliation Motive on Achievement, Attitude, and Student

Interactions”.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of informal

cooperative learning and the affiliation motive on achievement, attitude, and

student interactions. Participants classified as high or low need for affiliation used

either an informal cooperative learning strategy or an individual strategy while

receiving information, examples, practice and feedback from an instructional

television lesson. Results indicated that participants who used the individual
 29

strategy acquired significantly more knowledge from the lesson and indicated

significantly more continuing motivation for working alone than those who used

the informal cooperative strategy. Instructional strategy did not influence

performance on the application portion of the test. Results also revealed that high

affiliation participants expressed significantly more continuing motivation than low

affiliation participants for working with another person. Low affiliation participants

expressed significantly more continuing motivation than high affiliation

participants for working alone. Finally, results indicated that high affiliation dyads

exhibited significantly more on-task group behaviors (taking turns, sharing

materials, group discussion of content)and significantly more off-task behaviors

than low affiliation dyads.

Simon Veenman; Brenda Kenter; Kiki Post (2000) studied “Cooperative

Learning in Dutch Primary Classrooms”.

This study examines teachers' use and evaluation of cooperative learning

along with pupils' reactions to cooperative grouping and the quality of the group

cooperation in a sample of Dutch primary school teachers who implemented

cooperative learning methods. Teachers reported that cooperative learning

occurred in their classrooms about four times a week. Teachers reported social

skills, on-task behaviour and pupil self-esteem to improve as a result of having

pupils work in groups. The pupils reported a positive attitude towards cooperative

group learning and rated their work in groups as effective. About half of the

teachers reported problems with the monitoring of the cooperative groups.

Observations showed the time-on-task levels of the pupils working in groups to

 30

be high, but effective learning and cooperation not to be promoted. The teachers

devoted little time to the teaching of group work skills. In general, the

implementation of cooperative grouping was found to lack the features

recommended in the literature for effective cooperative learning.

Mohammad H. Ahmadi (2000) studied “The Impact of Cooperative

Learning In Teaching Mathematics”

This study presents an analysis of the results of an experimental study

conducted by the investigator at the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater in two

mathematics courses: one section of Finite Mathematics, and two sections of

Business Calculus. Both courses are designed for students majoring in business

and social sciences. The experiment involved a nontraditional style of teaching, a

combination of lecture and group discovery methods. The approach involved

considerable student interaction, both in and out of the classroom; it used a team

format and had less formal instruction. The dependent variables in the study

were student performance, interest, motivation, conceptual understanding, and

attitudes toward mathematics. To determine the effectiveness of the method of

instruction on the dependent variables, comparisons were made with data from

other sections of the same courses taught using more traditional methods. The

results of the study demonstrated that students in the study performed better

than those in traditional sections; their attitude towards mathematics improved;

they actually participated in outside classroom work and became more interested

in and motivated to do mathematics; and the majority of the students were

 31

positive about the instructional approach and thought this method was a better

way for them to learn mathematics.

Heinz Neber; Monika Finsterwald; Nicola Urban (2001) studied

“Cooperative Learning with Gifted and High-achieving Students: A review and

meta-analyses of 12 studies”

Current empirical research is reviewed in this study and meta-analyses of

available results in 12 published studies are performed. Results show that few

methodologically sound studies can be found at present. In addition, researchers

only considered a restricted spectrum of participants, focused on learning of

relatively simple materials, measured only a restricted range of possible

outcomes, and neglected processes and activities of the learners, which might

determine outcomes of cooperative learning. Results therefore remain

controversial even for fundamental issues like learning in homogeneous versus

heterogeneous, mixed-ability groups. In spite of these limitations, analyses

nevertheless show that cooperative learning offers strong potentials for further

improving the quality of instruction with gifted and high-achieving students.

Further empirical research is required to obtain more differentiated information on

the various aspects of cooperative learning.

Kristen (2002) studied “Effects of Cooperative Learning on the Academic

Achievement of Students with Learning Disabilities: An Update of Tateyama-

Sniezek’s Review”
 32

This study reviews research published from 1990 to 2000 examining effects

of cooperative learning strategies on the academic achievement of students with

learning disabilities. The literature search is described. Fifteen studies are

included in the review and are grouped according to the types of cooperative

learning strategies that were examined. Sample characteristics, measures,

findings, and effect sizes are reported in a table. Achievement outcomes are

mixed. Cooperative learning strategies that incorporate individual accountability

and group rewards are more likely to improve achievement of students with

disabilities. However, design problems across the studies limit conclusions to be

drawn about the efficacy of cooperative learning. More research is needed before

it may be viewed as an effective strategy for students with disabilities.

Sharon Sherman; Gregory Camilli (2002) studied “Effects of Leader and

Teacher Behaviour on Implementation of Cooperative Learning in the Elementary

School”

Structural equation modelling was used in this study to examine

interrelationships among change management functions, teacher orientations

and implementation of cooperative learning which were assessed in terms of four

latent variables based on teacher self-reports of knowledge, perceived benefits,

amount of professional development and frequency of use. After preliminary

modifications, the final structural model suggested four major influences on

implementation. First, lower levels of pupil control ideology of the teacher lead to

more self-reported knowledge of cooperative learning methods. Pupil control

ideology is a measure of how school personnel view their students with regard to
 33

control. The higher the pupil control ideology, the more controlled the classroom.

Second, higher levels of shared vision and lower levels of pupil control ideology

lead to stronger teacher perceptions of the benefits of using cooperative learning.

Third, higher levels of principal and resource support but lower levels of teacher

participation in decision making lead to more professional development

experiences.

Winston Vaughan (2002) studied “Effects of Cooperative Learningon

Achievement and Attitude”.

The investigator examined the effects of cooperative learningon the

achievement in and attitudes toward mathematics of a group of 5th-grade

students of color in a culture different from the United States (i.e., Bermuda).

Students participated in 12 weeks of R. Slavin's (1978) Student Teams

Achievement Division method of cooperative learning in mathematics during the

fall semester. Students completed 2 measures: the computation and application

sections of the California Achievement Test (1985) Form E (Level 14) and

Penelope Peterson's Attitude Toward Mathematics Scale for Grades 4-6

Students at 4 different intervals. The measures were completed as pretests at

the beginning of the semester (before students were exposed to cooperative

learning) and as posttests at the end of Weeks 5, 9, and 13. Data were analyzed

with a 1-factor (4 levels) repeated measures analysis of variance design to

ascertain whether there were significant differences among the pre-and posttest

scores. Results suggest that there were positive gains in attitudes and

achievement.
 34

LOCAL

Nowadays, different learning styles/ strategies are being adopted to

increase students’ skills, understanding and values towards learning progress. K-

12 program of Dep.ED.is enabling schools to continuously perform effectively

and efficiently to improve leaners’ performance and promote the total well-being

of the youth.

KPUP is being used in this curriculum; Knowledge, Process,

Understanding and Product which provides opportunities for the youth in

improving their learning.

This process is being done once every week in every subject so as the

students may share or give their own ideas and understanding about the subject

concern. It is of great help towards the students’ performance in classroom either

he belongs to the top of the class or in average group. They are free to discuss

the things they want to share with their group about their skills, abilities and

talents.

Adopting the so- called cooperative learning improve process, puts in

place a continuing systematic method of upgrading the delivery of educational

system in school. It also involves comparing and analyzing one’s knowledge

regarding the topic they are studying. It empowers its performance in attaining

desired outcomes in a certain subject.

 35

In an earlier study by Ferrer (2011) on student-centered instruction in science,

the elements of collaborative learning, which include group participation;

exploration, and choice, were not regularly observed in teaching. This paper

presents various strategies used to address the inadequacy in the use of

collaborative learning in the classrooms. Twenty teacher candidates in the

methods practicum course and their students served as participants in this study.

Science was taught for six weeks using various collaborative/cooperative

learning strategies in the elementary schools in Guam. A developed and

validated group participation instrument composed of 10 items was administered

to the elementary students at the end of the teaching period. The overall ratings

from the evaluation instrument indicate the teacher candidates‘ engagement of

K-5 students in active collaborative learning. All the strategies used obtained very

high ratings for frequency of occurrence. The interaction skills developed in these

strategies enabled groups to function effectively. The strategies used in this

study broadly encompassed the essence of learner-centeredness, which

fundamentally emphasizes the act of learning together. Some research studies

found out that collaborative learning actually increases the science achievement

of students. This is yet to be proven in this study. Thus, the effect of collaborative

learning on student achievement is underway as part of a broader study on

collaborative learning.
 36

CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This Chapter presents the research method that was used in this study. It

also discussed the research method, design, locale, and description of

respondents, instrument used and treatment and data analysis generated in the

study.

RESEARCH DESIGN

This study will make use of descriptive-experimental method of research.

It involves description, analysis, and interpretation of conditions that occurs at

the present time. It also illustrates the nature of situation as it exist at the time of

the study and analyze the effects of particular phenomenon. It was used to

present conditions, which is this research at the Collaborative Learning In English

10 In JHS S.Y 2018-2019. It also seeks to answer the questions to real facts

relating to the present condition.

Descriptive research in a study designed to depict the participants in an

accurate way. More simply put descriptive research is all about describing people

who take part in the study. Descriptive research can be either quantitative or

qualitative. It can involve collections of quantitative information that can be

tabulated along continium in numerical form. Such as scores on the test or the

number of times a person chooses to use a certain feature of multimedia

program or it can describe categories of information such as gender or pattern of

interaction when using technology in group situation.

38
 37

POPULATION AND LOCALE OF THE STUDY

To complete this study, a questionnaire is used to gather data that was

needed. It is the main instrument used by the researcher. The questionnaire has

one part, this part contains the necessary questions that will help to answer the

statement of the problem.

RESEARCH INSTRUMENT

The main research tool used for gathering relevant data of this dtudy is

questionnaire to describe the Significant difference of Controlled and

Experimental Group.

DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE

In making this research, the researcher will write a permission letter to the

principal, to be allowed to do this research. Next, the researcher will ask a

teacher to be part of this research. If the teacher agreed the research will start.

The researcher will give questionnaire in Cuyapo National High School in having

Grade 10 students as the respondents.

STATISTICAL TREATMENT OF DATA

To answer question number 1, which is about the profile of the respondent’s

frequency count and percentage will be used.

 38

To answer question number 2, which about the significant difference

between pre- test and post test scores of student in the control and experimental

group, T-test will be used.

To answer question number 3, which is about the significant difference

between the increment scores of student in the control and experimental group,

T-test will be used

 39

CHAPTER 4

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS, AND INTERPRETATIONS OF DATA

This Chapter also presents the necessary data gathered, analyzed, and

interpreted in answered the specific questions in this study. The gathered data

were organized, tabulated, statistically treated, analyzed and interpreted in

accordance to the order of problems in chapter 1.

Table 1

Socio-Demographic Profile of the Student-Respondents

Groups Frequency Percentage

Group Controlled 46 48.9

Experimental 48 51.1

Gender Male 55 58.5

Female 39 41.5

On Group

Based on the table, mostof the respondents is in experimental group with a

frequency of 48 and with51.1%. On the other hand controlled group got thelowest

frequency of 46 and with 48.9%. Most of my respondents are in experimental

group because the class population of the Experimental Group is higher than the

class population of Controlled Group.

On Gender

Based on the table, most of the respondents are Male with a frequency of 55 and

with58.5%. On the other hand Female got the lowest frequency which is 39 and

39
 40

with 41.5%. Most of My respondents are Male because in each group, Male has

the highest population and female with lowest.

Table 2

Socio-Demographic Profile of the Student-Respondents

Age 14 2 2.1

15 58 61.6

16 27 28.7

17 6 6.5

19 1 1.1

Siblings 1 8 8.5

2 33 35.1

3 30 31.9

4 13 13.9

5 5 5.3

6 4 4.3

9 1 1.1

On Age

Based on the table, most of the respondents is in age of 15 with a

frequency of 58 and with 61.7%. Second is in the age of 16 with frequency 27

and with a 28.7%. Third is in the age of 17 with frequency of 6 and with a 6.5%.

Fourth is in the age of 14 with frequency of 2 and with a 2.1%. 19 years old

gathered the frequency of 1 and 1.1%. Majority of my respondents is in the age

of 15 because both controlled and experimental group has the highest population

of 15 year old students.

 41

On Number of Siblings

Based on the table, there are 8 respondents who have 1 siblings which is

8.5%, 33 respondents who have 2 siblings with 35.1%, 30 Respondents with 3

siblings which is 31.9%, 13 respondents with 5 siblings which is 5.3%, 1

respondent with 9 siblings which is 1.1 percent. It can be gleaned that the 2

number of siblings get the majority than the others.

Table 3

Socio-Demographic Profile of the Student-Respondents

Grade Level 10 94 100

Father’s Highest Elementary Graduate 6 6.4

Educational High school Undergraduate 8 8.5

attainment High school Graduate 56 59.5

College Undergraduate 12 12.8

College Graduate 12 12.8

On Grade Level

Based on the table, Majority of the respondents are all Grade 10, with a

frequency of 94 and 100%. All of the respondents are Grade 10 because all male

and female respondents are Grade 10.

On Father’s Highest Educational Attainment

Based on the table, majority are high school graduate with frequency of 56

and 59.6%. Both College graduate and undergraduate got the frequency of 12

and both 12.8%. High school undergraduate got the frequency of 8 with 8.5%.
 42

Elementary Graduate got the frequency of 6 with 6.4%. It can be gleaned that

high school graduate have the majority in Father’s Highest Educational

attainment than others because Most of them choose to stop to sustain their

family and Maybe the family income is not enough to sustain their needs.

Table 4

Socio-Demographic Profile of the Student-Respondents

Mother’s Highest Elementary Graduate 3 3.2

Educational High school Undergraduate 4 4.3

attainment High school Graduate 64 68

College Undergraduate 12 12.8

College Graduate 10 10.6

Master’s Degree 1 1.1

Family monthly P8,000 And Below 58 61.7

Income P8,001-P16,000 21 22.3

P16,001-P32,000 10 10.6

P32,001-P80,000 4 4.3

P80,001 And Above 1 1.1

On Mother’s Highest Educational Attainment

Based on the table, Majority are high school graduate with frequency of 64

and 68.1%. Second is College undergraduate with Frequency of 12 and 12.8%.

Third is High school under graduate with frequency of 4 and 4.3%. Fourth is

Elementary Graduate with frequency of 3 and 3.2%. Master’s Degree got

frequency of 1 and with 1.1% which serve as the lowest. It can be gleaned that

there are more High school graduate in Mother’s Highest Educational Attainment
 43

than others because they are contended in the knowledge they get. They think

mother’s should only on the house taking care of there children.

On Monthly Family Income

Based on the table there are 58 respondents with a Monthly Family Income

of, 8,000 and below, which is 61.7%. 21 of 8,001-16,000 which is 22.3%, 10 of

16,001-32,000 which is 10.6%.4 of 32,001-80,000 which is, 4.3%. 1 of 80,001

and above which is 1.1%. Table shows that 8,000 and below got the majority in

the Monthly Family Income than the other, because in Mother’s highest

educational attainment and father’s highest educational attainment mostly are

only high school graduate. Most of the parents didn’t attain College, Masteral,

Doctoral Degree so it will be hard for them to find a better job with great salary.

Table 5

Socio-Demographic Profile of the Student-Respondents

Pre-Test Score 7-10 14 14.7

11-14 34 36.1

15-18 24 25.5

19-22 13 13.9

23-26 5 5.4

27-30 4 4.4

On Pre-Test Score

Based on the table 34 students got the score on, 11-14 bracket with,

36.1%. Second is 24 in the Bracket of15-18 with 25.5%. Third is 14 in the bracket
 44

of 7-10 with 14.7%. In the bracket of 23-26 with 5.4%.4 in the bracket of 27-30

with 4.4%.It can be gleaned that the bracket of 11-14 got the majority in Pre-test.

Table 6

Socio-Demographic Profile of the Student-Respondents

Post-Test Score 8-16 7 7.7

17-20 31 33

21-24 15 16

25-28 17 18.2

29-33 14 14.4

34-37 7 7.6

38-42 4 3.3

Increment Scores 0-3 15 16

4-7 36 38.3

8-11 17 18

12-15 15 16

17-23 11 11.7

On Post-test

Based on the table 31 students is in the bracket of 17-28 with 33%. 17 in

the bracket of 25-28 with 18.2%.15 in the Bracket of 21-24 with 16%.14 in the

bracket of 29-33 with 14.4%. 7 in 8-16 bracket with 7.7%. 4 in 38-42 with 3.3%. It

can be gleaned that the bracket of 17-20 got the majority in Post-test.
 45

On Increment Score

Based on the table, 36 students is in the bracket of 4-7 with 38.3%. 17 in

the bracket of 8-11 with 18%. Both 0-3 and 12-15 bracket got 15 with 16%. 11 on

17-23 with 11.7%. It can be gleaned that the bracket of 4-7 got the majority in

increment scores.

Table 7

Pre-test, Post-test and Increment Scores of Student-Respondents

T-Value Sig.

Pre-test -1.987 .050

Post-test .409 .683

Increment 2.882 .005

Independent sample T-Test were used in the analysis of the Collaborative

Learning in English 10. The Pre-Test has -1.987 T-Value and has P-Value of

0.50, this show that there is significant difference between the result. In Post-

Test the T-Value is. 409 and the P-Value is .683, this means there is no

significant difference between this result. While the Increment has T-Value of

2.882 and P-Value of .005, this also means that there is a significant difference

between this result.

 46

CHAPTER 5

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This Chapter presents the Summary of Findings of this study, the

conclusion drawn from findings, and the recommendation based on the analysis

and interpretation of data collected.

Summary of findings

On Profile

A. On Gender, there are more male than female.

B. On Age, most are 15 year old Respondents.

C. On Grade Level, Majority are Grade 10 students.

D. On Number of siblings, There are 2 number of siblings is more than others.

E. On father’s highest educational attainment, most of them are High School

Graduate.

F. On Mother’s highest educational attainment, most of them are High

School Graduate.

G. On Monthly Family income, there are more 8,000 and Below in monthly

family Income.

H. On Group the Experimental group is higher than the class population of

Controlled group.

I. On Pre-Test Score, the bracket of 11-14 is more than others.

J. On Post-Test Score, the bracket of 17-20 is more than others.

K. On Increment Score, the bracket of 4-7 is more than others.

46
 47

On Significance

In terms of Pre-Test and Increment Scores there is a significant difference.

In Post-Test there is no Significant Difference.

Conclusion

It was show in Pre-Test and Increment Scores, there is a significant

difference, on the Post-test there is no significant difference between the result.

Therefore it can be concluded that there is a significant difference between

Experimental and Controlled group. It can’t be deny that collaborative learning is

a method to develop knowledge.

Recommendations

Since it was shown that there is a significant difference between Experimental

and Controlled Group, the following are Recommendations:

 If You are Instructor or Facilitator, Use Collaborative Learning most time of

teaching, if needed.

 If You are Instructor or Facilitator, Make Collaborative Learning useful.

Without careful planning Collaborative learning is just a waste of time .

 If You are a Instructor or Facilitator, Discuss what Collaborative Learning

is, and what for, so your listeners will have knowledge about it.

 To all students, listen to your instructor or facilitator carefully so

Collaborative Learning won’t be a waste of time.

 48

BIBLIOGRAPHY

http://udyong.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=634

0:icl-independent-cooperative-learning&catid=90&Itemid=1267

https://ejournals.ph/article.php?id=2410

https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://jultika.o

ulu.fi/files/isbn9789526206882.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjZ1pPprPbcAhVNWH0KHf

_7BFcQFjAAegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw0glxluG603ErGgG52qZv3S

https://www.google.com.ph/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://uir.unis

a.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10500/1394/03chapter2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwirrcqurf

bcAhVSbysKHcHDA3IQFjAFegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3WClNSbcUaAWpCL

RkYfhI6&cshid=1534586863080
 49

Republic of the Philippines

CUYAPO NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Senior High School
Bulala, Cuyapo Nueva Ecija

August 14, 2018

AURORA T. AGUILA
Office of the School Principal
Cuyapo National High School
Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija

Madam,

I am a student of Cuyapo National High School presently enrolled in

Research in Daily Life 2 and in the process of conducting a study entitled
“Collaborative Learning In English 10 In JHS S.Y 2018-2019”. The study aims
to find out if there is a significant difference between Pre-test and Post-test score
in Controlled and Experimental Group.

Relative to this, may I Request your good office to grant me permission to

administer my questionnaire to JHS students of Cuyapo National High School.
Attached here with, is a sample of the questionnaires for your reference and
information.

Your kind consideration and favorable action on this matter will be

appreciated. Thank you very much. More Power and God bless!
Very Truly yours,

MARC CHRISTIAN C. CACHUELA

Researcher

Approved: Noted:

AURORA T. AGUILA. JOB D. GAMBOA

School Principal IV. Subject Teacher

 50

Republic of The Philippines

CUYAPO NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Senior High School
Bulala, Cuyapo Nueva Ecija

DIRECTION. I am interested to your responses. Please supply the requisite information

below with all honesty which will be great help to attaining the principal goals of the
study “COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN ENGLISH 10 In JHS S.Y 2018-2019”, The
data will be treated with outmost confidentially.
l. PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
Direction: Please supply the information needed
Name (Optional): _________________________
Age: _____
Gender: Male ________ Female ________
Number of Sibling (s): _______________________
Educational Attainment
Mother: Father:
_____Elementary Undergraduate _____ Elementary Undergraduate
_____Elementary Graduate. _____ Elementary Graduate
_____ High School Undergraduate. _____ High School Undergraduate
_____ High School Graduate _____ High School Graduate
_____College Undergraduate _____ College Undergraduate
_____ College Graduate _____ College Graduate
_____ Master’s Degree _____ Master’s Degree
_____ Doctoral Degree _____ Doctoral Degree
Monthly Family Income
________ 8,000 and below ________ 32,001 - 80,000
________ 8,001 - 16,000 ________ 80,001 and above
________ 16,001 - 32,000

PRE-TEST SCORE:_______
POST-TEST SCORE:_______
 51

CURRICULUM VITAE

MARC CHRISTIAN C. CACHUELA

PERSONAL PROFILE
Current Address: Brgy. Bantug Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija
Mobile Number: 09056789652
Email address: [email protected]
Birthdate: April 26, 2001
Civil Status: Single
Name of Mother: Maria C. Cachuela
Name of Father: Celso A. Cachuela

EDUCATIONAL QUALIFICATION
SECONDARY
Cuyapo National High School
Bulala Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija
Awards:
Grade 11 ( With Honors)
Grade 9 ( Rank 5)
Grade 8 ( Rank 1)
 52

PRIMARY
Doña Consuelo Elementary School
Magsaysay St. Dist. 5 Cuyapo, Nueva Ecija
Awards:
Grade 6 ( Most Courageous)
Grade 5 ( Best In Filipino)
Grade 4 (4th Honors)
Grade 3 (5th Honors)
Grade 1 ( 3rd Honors)
KINDER
E.Abalos Primary School
Bantug,Cuyapo Nueva Ecija
Awards:
Best In Music