Content uploaded by Tatang Muttaqin
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tatang Muttaqin on Feb 05, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
COOPERATIVE LEARNING AND STUDENTS’ SELF-ESTEEM
Tatang Muttaqin
BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Education is essential and has become one of the most important
elements in life. Discussion on education matters is not easy because of
the nature of its complexity and dynamics. Education is the instrument
for the development of a human being as a whole.
The role of education in developing oneself as a human resource has
been discussed extensively by Fullan (1982) as a general objective of
education, which include the cognitive aspect comprising academic skills
(i.e. reading and mathematics) and at a higher level, thinking skills (i.e.
ability in problem solving). Furthermore, according to Fullan, education
simultaneously includes the development of personal and social aspects,
which enable a person to work and live in a group creatively, with
initiatives, empathy and having adequate interpersonal skills to live in
society. In short word, education as a vehicle to improve the quality of
human resources must be able to prepare Indonesian people for their life
socially and intellectually. One important aspect in developing a human
being is the positive view of the pupils of themselves called self-esteem.
To achieve these educational objectives, the Ministry of National
Education attempts to improve the quality of schools by arranging staff
development programs and providing school facilities and resources, such
2
as, in Primary Education Quality Improvement Project (PEQIP) and
Secondary Education Quality Improvement Project (SEQIP). These have
yielded some improvement, but the results are too small compared with
the endeavour (Van Der Werf, G., Creemers, B., De Jong, R., and Klaver,
E., 2000).
To enhance attainment, because learning is a central process that is
directly and indirectly influenced by teaching instruction, efforts might be
focused on school level learning environments and teaching instruction
(Nash, 1979; Anderson, 1989; Pieters et al., 1990) which has traditionally
been dominated by the competitive-individualistic mass-production
structure (http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cs.html) and the winner-loser
system (http://www.clcrc.com/pages/decision.html).
Competition educates the values of beating and getting more than
other people to be successful, obstructing the work of others, feeling happy
when other people fail, seeing others as a threat to one success, viewing
worth as contingent on wins, and viewing those who are different in
negative ways. In addition, competition will encourage negative opposition
resulting from no interaction and negative perceptions. It leads to
inaccurate communication, egocentrism, resistance to influence,
stereotyping, static views of others, and low self-esteem (Johnson, D.W.,
Johnson, R.T. & Stanne, M.B., 2000).
For these reasons, we have to change instruction methods from the
traditional one (competitive- and individualistic-based) to the cooperative
3
learning method. At the school level, schools need to change from a mass-
production, competitive and individualistic organizational structure to a
high-performance, cooperative, and team-based organizational structure.
In doing so, traditional schools become cooperative schools. As a result,
students work primarily in cooperative learning groups, teachers and
building staff work in cooperative teams, and district administrators work
in cooperative teams (http://www.clcrc.com/pages/cs.html).
Cooperation teaches the values of committing oneself to the
common good, seeing success as depending on the efforts of all
participants, feeling happy when others succeed, seeing others as
resources to help one succeed, viewing worth as unconditional, and
viewing diverse others in positive ways (Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R.,
1989).
In cooperative learning, the diverse students in the school are to be
transformed into a symphony. Students need positive self-esteem, the
psychological health to face conflict and challenge, and the social
competencies required to work effectively with diverse peers. Personal and
super-ordinate identities are developed through group processes. It takes
membership in cooperative groups to develop a personal identity, an
ethnic identity, an identity as a citizen of a society, and an identity as a
world citizen.
There is considerable evidence and extensive possibilities that
working cooperatively increases students' self-esteem, their ability to
4
work independently and use their autonomy, their interpersonal and
small-group skills, and their understanding of interdependence and
cooperative efforts (Johnson & Johnson, 1998; Slavin, 1991).
THE PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this study was to measure the influence of the
cooperative learning method used to improve students’ self-esteem in
primary and secondary schools. It is hypothesized that teaching by
cooperative learning methods can develop students’ self-esteem.
Specifically this study examined three research questions related to
the use of cooperative learning methods in teaching-learning activities
and its influence on developing students’ self-esteem.
Question 1:
How was the Cooperative Learning Method implemented and what was it
used for?
Question 2:
How did the Cooperative Learning Method take place in the class setting
and what strategies were used?
Question 3:
What influences did the Cooperative Learning Method have on the level of
students’ self-esteem?
5
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The importance of this study was its contribution toward solving
the problem of the low level self-esteem of Indonesian students. If the
results of this study indicate that teaching by cooperative learning
methods can improve students’ self-esteem, it is hoped that this model will
encourage Indonesian policy-makers and teachers to apply it at primary
and secondary levels.
Importantly, cooperative learning does not require laboratory
equipment, so this method can be used in the Indonesian context, which is
characterized by diverse condition of schools in resources availability.
LITERATURE REVIEW
A. The Cooperative Learning Method
Slavin (1990, p.2) defines the Cooperative Learning Method (CLM)
as a learning process by which student work collaboratively in groups “to
master material initially presented by the teacher”. Watson (1991) points
out that in this method, the teacher acts like a coordinator and facilitator.
Johnson, Johnson & Stanne (2000) state that cooperative learning
is one of the most amazing and productive areas of theory, research, and
practice in education. Cooperative learning exists when students work
together to achieve collective learning goals. Each student can attain his
or her learning goal if, and only if, the other group members accomplish
theirs.
6
It can be summarized that cooperative learning is a classroom-
learning environment where students work together in small and varied
groups during learning activities. Students are the main learning resource
for each other; sharing and getting together needed information.
Characteristically, in cooperative learning, students are divided
into groups. Each group consists of 3 to 5 members who work together to
accomplish a common goal. The members of a group are mixed in student
achievement levels, gender, and ethnicity. Each member has a different
role as a coordinator, recorder, or speaker (Nattiv, Winitzky & Dricky,
1991). The group works more effectively when the following components
are incorporated: individual accountability, group goals, and task support
and social skill development.
In cooperative learning the student’s work as a group to complete a
single group product, share ideas and assist each other with solutions. A
coordinator asks questions to ensure all members understand the group
solution and students discuss with each other before asking the teacher.
The teacher praises and rewards the group based on the group
performance (Johnson, Johnson & Skon, 1979).
Teaching by means of cooperative learning methods promotes
students to engage in and take on a bigger responsibility for their learning
and creates variety in instruction (Native, et al, 1991). Working in small
groups gives students a greater share in the classroom’s discussion and
contributes to their language development. In a small group, the students
7
have a greater opportunity to respond and reply to what others say and it
makes a better situation for developing a students’ ability to communicate
than does a whole class discussion (Reid, Forrestal & Cook, 1989).
In the cooperative learning environment, the students not only
complete a task or solve a problem, but also learn something. Cooperative
group activity produces more and better ideas than if the students work
alone. Discussion can enlarge retention and develop their problem-solving
ability. Cooperative learning can enhance the social relationship among
students. Within cooperative learning, learning starts with
inquisitiveness and progresses to the students’ understanding of subject
in daily life and is related with areas of knowledge (Adam, Carlson &
Hamm, 1990).
Cooperative learning promotes students to help one another and
relate to one another as colleagues. The social interaction that occurs
during the process of cooperative learning can put forth positive effects on
students’ self-esteem and on the students’ perception of their classroom
environment as well (Sharan, 1980).
The promotive interaction tends to result in frequent, accurate, and
open communication; accurate understanding of each other's perspective;
inducibility; differentiated, dynamic, and realistic views of each other;
high self-esteem; success and productivity; and expectations for positive
and productive future interaction (Johnson & Johnson, 1998).
8
There are six cooperative learning methods: jigsaw methods,
student team achievement divisions (STAD), team game tournaments,
team assisted individualization, group investigation (GI), and Co-op Co-
op.
Jigsaw method
In the Jigsaw method, interdependence among students is
promoted by giving each student in a learning group access to information
comprising only one part of a lesson. Students are then accountable to
their jigsaw group for teaching that part of the lesson to the rest of the
members. Students from different groups which each have the same
material to learn, meet in counterpart groups to discuss and learn their
part of the lesson before attempting to teach material to the other
students in their jigsaw group.
Cooperation among students occurs not only within each jigsaw
group, but also within the counterpart group. Students are encouraged
constantly to evaluate group process, however, there is no specific group
reward for achievement or for the use of cooperative skills.
The incentive structure in jigsaw is individualistic: students’ grades
are based on individual examination performance. Therefore, students are
individually accountable for learning the entire lesson, although there is
no group incentive for doing so (Knight & Bohlmeyer, 1990).
9
Student team achievement divisions (STAD)
In “student team achievement divisions”, the students work in their
groups to drill and tutor each other to prepare for the competition among
groups. A specific group reward given for individual learning is the crucial
factor in facilitating peer norms as sanctions for achievement (Slavin,
1983).
A typical group reward for winning the competition is recognition in
a class newsletter, but more tangible rewards may be given. Because
competition is essential, a team must be matched evenly according to the
ability of each team member. Each student has to have an equal
opportunity to contribute to the team score. Students’ scores are adjusted
so that points contributed to the team are based on improvement over
previous performance (Slavin, 1980).
Team game tournaments (TGT)
“Team game tournaments” is similar to “Student team achievement
divisions”. Dansereau, Hythecker, and Rocklin (1988) developed this
method from different teams of students of comparable ability in order to
compete face to face in tournaments.
Comparable ability among competitors is maintained by having
tournament winners compete with students of higher ability in the next
tournament, while tournament losers compete with students of lower
ability in the next tournament.
10
Team assisted individualisation (Learning Together)
This method was designed by Johnson, Johnson and Holubec (1990)
to combine the motivational incentive of group rewards with an
individualized instructional program appropriate for the level of skills
possessed by each student.
In most other methods of cooperative learning, the small learning
groups are composed of students of varying ability. Each student works on
an individualized unit of instruction. Team members use answer sheets to
check each other’s work-sheets and practice tests, and are responsible for
making sure that team-mates are prepared to take the final test for each
unit.
Discussion and peer tutoring occur because students are required to
ask their team member for help before they ask for help from the teacher.
The teacher, besides acting as a resource person for the cooperative
learning groups, takes students out of their team for five to six minutes
daily to give instruction to groups of students who are at the same level in
the curriculum.
Team scores are computed from the average number of units
covered by team members in a four-week period and on their scores on
their final unit test (Slavin, 1985).
11
Group investigation (GI)
GI was designed to provide students with very broad and diverse
learning experiences (Sharan & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1980 in Kagan, 1985)
have presented a detailed presentation of the philosophy and technique of
this method.
This method emphasizes student self-regulation of learning
activities and requires the coordination of four dimensions of classroom
life: (1) the organization of the classroom into a “group of groups”; (2) the
use of multifaceted learning tasks for cooperative group investigation; (3)
the inclusion of multilateral communication among pupils and active
learning skills; and (4) teacher communication with and guidance of the
groups (Kagan, 1985, p. 72).
Kagan (1985) describes GI as a highly structured method with six
specific stages of implementation:
1. Identifying and selecting the topic and organizing the pupils into
research groups.
2. The groups choose what is to be studied and how is to be studied, and
determine the goal of their study (planning the learning task).
3. Carrying out the investigation.
4. To prepare a final report, the groups form a steering committee, which
composed of representatives from each group. The steering committee
coordinates the timetable, use of materials and provides
12
recommendations to ensure that the content of presentation is clear
and interesting.
5. Presenting a summary of the result of their investigation (final report)
to the rest of the class.
6. Students may participate in the evaluation process by providing
feedback to individuals and other groups by submitting questions to
the teacher for use in an examination. Teachers are encouraged to
make individual evaluations in an ongoing process by observing the
investigative and collaborative skills used by students doing the
project.
Co-op Co-op
According to Kagan (1985), the basic concept of Co-op Co-op is
structuring the classroom so that students work in cooperative teams
toward a goal that will help the other students in the class. Co-op Co-op is
familiarized toward complex, multifaceted learning tasks and student
control of what and how to learn.
Kagan (1985) identified ten steps: 1) student-centered class
discussion; 2) selection of student learning teams; 3) team building; 4)
team topic selection; 5) mini-topic selection; 6) mini-topic preparation; 7)
mini-topic presentation; 8) preparation of team presentation; 9) team
presentations; and 10) evaluation.
13
B. The Role of Cooperative Learning in Developing Students’
Self-Esteem
According to Gilles (2000), CLM has been used successfully as a
classroom strategy to promote learning and achievements in different
curriculum areas, such as, mathematics, science, and writing. In affective
domains, CLM has fostered social skills, self-esteem, positive attitudes,
motivation, and social acceptance. Slavin (1990) states that CLM was
used widely in Western schools to improve students learning, students’
self-esteem, and pro-social attitudes.
This study will concentrate on the influences of CLM on students’
self-esteem. Steffenhagen (1990, p.6) defines self-esteem as “a favourable
affectual state of consciousness.” This implies that self-esteem has an
influence in developing quality of emotion. Concretely, low self-esteem
would then embody many of characteristics of a negative emotion, such as,
hatred and resentment, and high self-esteem largely enjoys positive
emotional state of being. Baumeister (1993) added that self-esteem is an
index of emotional adjustment, which has significant implications for
mental health.
Student’s self-esteem is largely a function of how successful they
are in school, regardless of all other variables, even disadvantaging home
backgrounds (Chapman et al. 1990, in Porter, 2000).
14
Porter (2000) defines self-esteem as a measure of how much we
value our personal skills and qualities. When we believe that our qualities
and achievements are worthwhile, our self-esteem is healthy. This implies
that an unhealthy or low self-esteem can come about in three ways: 1)
factually, have no competent at the skills; 2) competent but do not realize
it because we do not notice enough of our positive attributes (inaccurate
self-concept); 3) expectation could be too high, and as a result we are
disappointed even in our high achievements and personal virtues.
This understanding yields some recommendations for ensuring that
students develop a healthy self-esteem by achieving a task that they
value. Curry & Johnson (1990 in Porter, 2000) state that self-esteem is
not a marginal pursuit that can be developed by pepping children up with
empty praise, extra touch, and applauses of support. Such efforts are
momentary at best, and misleading at worse. Our children need coaches,
not cheerleaders.
Curry & Johnson (1990) state if students lack confidence because
they are being unsuccessful in important ways, you do not want to
improve their self-esteem artificially, but instead build their skills. Their
low self-esteem is both valid and functional, because it might motivate
them to achieve. Thus you need ways to promote genuine success in your
classroom.
Porter (2000) identifies three ways to enhance students’ self-esteem
as follows:
15
1. Positive expectation. When you expect students to be capable, they are
more likely to behave capably (Kauffman, 1997). Thus you will need to
communicate your faith in every student’s ability to improve, grow and
develop, and expect all to achieve high standards of work (Jones &
Jones, 1998; Kauffman, 1997; Kindsvatter et al., 1992; Rogers, 1998).
2. Encourage risk taking. It is vital that you promote students to take
risks, set their own goals, organize their own activities and negotiate
learning contracts (McGrath & Francey, 1991). Promoting creativity is
important for positive learning (Knight, 1991) and will give students
permission to struggle for their ideals.
3. Accept mistakes. Balson (1992) remarks that most adults instruct
children by focusing on their mistakes, in the incorrect belief that this
will help them to learn. Instead, it discourages efforts and contributes
to continued failure by focusing on children’s deficiencies and not
noticing their strengths.
Theoretically, the cooperative learning method has the capability to
apply these three ways to enhance students’ self-esteem. Sharan (1980)
points out that cooperative learning emerges as a superior approach for all
students if compared with the traditional whole-class method. Johnson &
Johnson (1989) mention that there have been over 80 studies since the
1950s comparing the relative impact of cooperative, competitive, and
individualistic experiences on self-esteem. Cooperative learning methods
16
promote higher self-esteem than does competitive (effect size = 0.58) or
individualistic (effect-size = 0.44) methods.
In fact, in Indonesia, teachers have to teach around 40-50 pupils
per class with limited facilities and equipment. As a consequence, it is
impossible to demand teachers give individual attention to students. For
these reasons, the cooperative learning method is more suitable in the
teaching learning activity in Indonesia. In the classroom, where
cooperative learning methods are engaged, students seem more
comfortable (Untung, 1993). Cooperative learning has a positive impact on
students without harmful effect on other students in the class (Rice &
Gabel, 1990).
It is possible that the cooperative learning method may be effective
in improving students’ self-esteem because students will be more active
compared with the traditional method and may gain more understanding
about lessons. As a result, it will help to develop their self-esteem.
17
METHODOLOGY
This study employs the following procedures: reading (literature
study), visits, observations, interviews, and questionnaires.
READING (LITERATURE STUDY)
Before visiting schools, the researcher read materials for basic
information and the backgrounds of school conditions and on the topic of
study (literature study). Material was found at the websites of the schools
for school background and in books, journals and websites for the
literature study.
VISITS
The researcher visited two schools: Beckenham Primary School and
Yule Brook College in Maddington (Secondary level). The schools were
selected by the district level. Before visiting the schools, the researcher
requested permission from the school Principals.
OBSERVATIONS
This step is intended to observe interactive behavior and CLM in
the classroom setting. Observations were carried out in two schools:
Beckenham Primary School in Beckenham and Yule Brook College
(secondary level) in Maddington.
18
In Bechenham, observations of a class of two levels (years 6 and 7)
were carried out on 21 November 2001 (Wednesday) and 10 December
2001 (Monday) from 09.30 am until 12.00 pm 19 November 2001.
In Yule Brook College Maddington, observations were made on 19
November 2001 (Monday) from 10.00 am until 12.00.
INTERVIEWS
This step is intended to gather information concerning how CLM
was implemented to enhance students’ self-esteem, what kind of activities
of CLM includes, and to learn of teachers’ perception about CLM in
enhancing students’ self-esteem. In addition, the researcher used
interviews to cross-check students questionnaires (triangulation method).
QUESTIONNAIRES
This method was used to gather information by means of a
questionnaire concerning student’s preferences for learning by means of
CLM, student’s background, and how students feel about their self-
esteem.
Regarding students’ participation in the cooperative learning
process, the researcher adopted ten items (5 items for involvement and 5
items for cooperation) from the What is happening in this class (WIHIC)
questionnaire developed by Fraser (1999). The students would respond:
almost never (1), seldom (2), sometimes (3), often (4), and almost always
(5).
19
To discover students’ self-esteem, the researcher employed
Steffenhagen’s (1990) self-esteem test, which basically consisted of
questions focusing on material or situational aspects, transcendental
aspect, and self-awareness or integration aspects. The three constructs in
the preliminary theoretical framework were examined to identify sub-
constructs suitable for inclusion in instrument scales. The sub-constructs
were then expressed as question items in the student survey. Basically, in
measuring students’ self-esteem, this study adopts 15 items from
Steffenhagens’ test model. The students respond using a 5-Likert Scale
from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
A. Population and Sample
The researcher planned to employ students from Beckenham
Primary School and Yule Brook College. Unfortunately, due to the long-
term break, the researcher just carried out the quantitative data from the
Beckenham Primary School.
The sample of the study consisted of 30 students in years 6 and 7
learning together in the same class (mixed class).
B. Data Collection Procedure
Before conducting the study, the researcher requested permission of
the Principals. After getting permission, the researcher met and consulted
informally with them and was introduced to some teachers.
20
On the second visit, the researcher observed directly the class
before rest time, and distributed questionnaires to the students. Teachers
assisted in explaining items. The data collection was completed on 10
December 2001. The data obtained from student answers were coded and
put into a data file in preparation for analysis.
LIMITATION OF STUDY
There are some limitations that can influence the ability to
generalize the results of this study. There are several factors in the
research methodology which were considered capable of influencing the
findings of the study:
First, the sample of the study is very small. Therefore, the results are not
able to be generalized.
Second, the duration of the observation was very short. As a result, the
researcher obtained limited information.
Third, the questionnaires were distributed to one group of the sample
study. As a consequence, the researcher did not have information for
comparison. For example, treatment group students compared with
control group students.
21
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RESULTS
This study was conducted to answer three questions as follows:
Question 1. How was the Cooperative Learning Method
implemented and what was it used for?
The cooperative learning method is developed to improve student
learning process. It is a part of change process of teaching method from
teacher-centered-based to student-centered-based. Yager (1991) points out
that learning is an active process occurring within and influenced by
learner, and learning outcomes do not depend only what the teacher
presents.
In the constructivist view, learning is an active process that builds
on the students’ previously constructed conceptions. Individual prior
conceptions derive from experience with the environment, their existing
ideas which are used to model new situations and from cultural
transmission through language (Head, 1985).
By using a constructivist epistemology as a referent, teachers can
become more sensitive to children’s prior knowledge and the processes by
which they make sense of phenomena. The constructivist teachers
promote group learning, where two or three students discuss approaches
to given problems with little or no interference from the teacher. What
happens to and with such small groups of students can be used as the
22
whole-class arrives at a consensus of the various small group analysis
(Yager, 1991).
Students construct their knowledge concepts not only based on
their prior knowledge, but by the influence by the group, hence it is useful
if students learn together with others in groups (Clements & Battista,
1990). In the constructivist approach, the teaching-learning activity uses
cooperative learning strategies because these strategies allow individuals
to test the suitability of their experiential world within the community of
others (Lorsbach & Tobin, 1992).
In Western Australia, the cooperative learning method is used
widely from primary to tertiary schools. Some schools emphasize this
method by implementing team teaching system, which divides teachers in
the subject matter team, such as, in City Beach Senior High School,
Cannington Community School, and Yule Brook College. The other
schools used non-team teaching, such as, Beckenham Primary School.
Due to the school-based management system, implementation of
the cooperative learning depends on the schools, particularly principals
and teachers. According to Margaret (a teacher of Bechenham Primary
School), the implementation of cooperative learning and the other
methods depends on the teachers. Teachers have freedom to implement
appropriate teaching methods.
23
Terry Boland (Principal of Yule Brook College) stated that the
cooperative learning method using team teaching system is very helpful
for diverse and low social economy status of students. In addition, it is
very useful for enhancing student-student relationship and students-
teachers relationship, which can give advantages for healthy learning
environment. By using cooperative learning methods, Boland expected
students could help each other, which consequently will improve student’s
knowledge, skills, self-confident, and self-esteem.
Question 2. How did the Cooperative Learning Method take place
in the class setting and what strategies were used?
In the classroom setting, the role of teachers is very crucial to
maximize the cooperative learning method. The instructional skill of the
teachers can be useful to minimize distractive student behaviour in
cooperative learning method.
Margaret identifies three important aspects in maximizing
cooperative learning method: (1) encourage students to involve in the
learning process; (2) minimize distractive behaviour; (3) give more
attention for the passive students (such as Asian and Aboriginal
students).
From the six strategies of the cooperative learning method, the
researcher identified three strategies used in the classroom process: Team
24
Assisted Individualization (learning together), Jigsaw method, and Co-op
Co-op. The learning together is commonly used in some schools.
Question 3: What influences did the Cooperative Learning Method
have on the level of students’ self-esteem?
The data, collected from Beckenham Primary School, was coded and
analyzed by using statistics package for social sciences (SPSS).
The table below shows the correlation between the independent
variable (FAK_IND) and dependent variable (FAK_DEP) is significant
because Pearson Correlation is 0.502 > 0.5 and sig.(2-tailed) is 0.006 >
0.001. This means participation in cooperative learning method has
significant correlation with improving students’ self-esteem.
Correlations
1,000
,502
**
,
,006
252,800
209,793
8,717
7,493
30
29
,502
**
1,000
,006
,
209,793
693,310
7,493
24,761
29
29
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sum of Squares and
Cross-products
Covariance
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
Sum of Squares and
Cross-products
Covariance
N
FAK_IND
FAK_DEP
FAK_IND
FAK_DEP
Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
**.
The writer realizes that there are many variables which influence
students’ self-esteem. Beside participation in cooperative learning, the
25
social-economic status (SES) of the students may have an influence on
students’ self-esteem.
By using social-economic status (SES) analysis, data shows:
1. Almost all respondents (93%) live in a complete family consisting of
father, mother, and sisters or brothers.
2. Almost all respondents (93%) come from families that have jobs. The
majority of respondents (60%) come from families where both fathers
and mothers work; only fathers work, 20%; and only mothers work,
13%. Therefore, only 7% come from jobless (unemployment) families.
3. The professions of respondent’s fathers consisted of workers (50%),
mechanics (6.7%), engineers (6.7%), accountants, managers, developers
and supervisors (each of them is 3.3%).
4. The professions of respondent’s mothers consisted of workers (50%),
teachers (10%), lawyers (6.7%), managers and engineers (each of them
is 3.3%).
DISCUSSION
By using a constructivist epistemology as a referent, in the learning
process, students construct their knowledge concepts based on their prior
knowledge and the influence of the group, hence it is useful if students
learn together with others in groups to construct their knowledge concepts
(Clements & Battista, 1990). Therefore, a constructivist generally uses
cooperative learning strategies because these strategies allow individuals
26
to test the suitability of their experiential world within the community of
others (Lorsbach & Tobin, 1992).
In addition, referring to the Social interdependency theory,
cooperative learning method (CLM) is useful for self-acceptance and self-
esteem because CLM based on (a) internalizing perceptions that one is
known, accepted, and liked as one is, (b) internalizing mutual success, and
(c) evaluating oneself favorably in comparison with peers.
Combination of achievement of knowledge and improvement of self-
esteem as a key of mental health (Baumeister, 1993; Chapman et al. 1990
in Porter, 2000) is ideal accomplishment of learning process. It can be said
that CLM has a strong point to achieve educational objectives both
knowledge-skill (IQ) and attitude-behaviour (EQ) because it not only
transfers knowledge, but also prepares students for real-life with mentally
healthy and positive self-esteem.
In the Indonesian context, teachers still use the lecturer method for
transferring knowledge, which is characterized by the high competition
indicated by the National Examination system in measuring a student’s
achievement (EBTANAS). Consequently, students attempt to beat each
other and expect to become winners. This learning environment has an
unexpected effect on student attitudes in the school, such as, intolerance,
cruelty, fighting, and violence.
27
The writer was impressed by the classroom and learning
environment in schools in Western Australia (WA) which was
characterized by togetherness, informal communication, friendship, and
freedom. The success of CLM in WA is the effect of implementation of
school-based management, which gives more authority and freedom to the
school, particularly teachers. This condition is different from Indonesia
characterized by center-minded and teachers just do what must be done
and how to prepare students for examination. Both teachers and students
are under pressure and in a state of stress.
Teacher competency is one crucial aspect in succeeding CLM. To
succeed CLM, teachers not only understand the subject matter but also
how to create and maintain conducive learning environment. In
Indonesia, we have to prepare teachers for those competencies in both pre-
service training and in-service training process.
There are six strategies in CLM, each strategy has strengths and
weaknesses depending on the condition of the students. These choices are
useful for the Indonesian context which is characterized by diverse
students psychologically and socially.
Statistically, CLM has a significant correlation to students’ self-
esteem. This finding strengthens previous findings, such as, Slavin (1990).
Even though, the writer realizes that besides teaching methods, there are
other factors influencing to student’s self-esteem, such as, students’
culture and social economic status of students (SES).
28
The SES of students may influence developing students’ self-esteem
process. This influence does not mean substituted cooperative learning
method. As evidence of this claim, Mortimore & Sammons’s (1987) study
found that school had six times more effect on progress than did the
students’ backgrounds (Jones & Jones 1998).
Due to the reality of society in Indonesia, low SES is more than
high SES. Students from low SES generally have no confidence to ask and
discuss directly with the teacher. Consequently, their improvement is low.
By using CLM, students from low SES, generally are low level of
achievement, will be helped by other students and feel free to ask and
discuss with the others (peers). Therefore, CLM can enhance the
effectiveness of the learning process.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the learning objective is to prepare pupils to face real
life by developing knowledge and skill aspects and be mentally healthy.
One key aspect to develop pupils who are mentally healthy is positive self-
esteem. Therefore, the learning process and environment have to be
conducive to improve students’ self-esteem.
One method of learning that has strong point to improve students’
self-esteem is the cooperative learning method. Research has revealed
that it can influence students’ self-esteem.
29
The cooperative learning method generally has been used in
developed countries including Australia. This method is suitable for the
Indonesian context which is characterized by diverse students, socially
and culturally. It is well-known that the cooperative learning method need
more time than whole-class instruction and more teacher authority and
freedom. Therefore, the implementation of school-based management is
an indispensable condition in supporting this cooperative learning
method.
REFLECTION
As an education program planner and researcher, this study has
been valuable learning experience in my life. It has opened my eyes to the
complex nature of education particularly learning environments and
teaching methods directly in the classroom process.
This experience observing the learning process as a front line in
educational process and to visit and discuss with education department
officers in Western Australia has taught me to look at situations with an
open mind and learn how to analyze those situations so that I might be
better able to understand the new scenery of education development in
Australia as a developed country. This direct observation and discussion
was very useful as concrete knowledge to understand my own role as an
education program planner in Indonesia as a developing country.
30
The study has enabled me to reflect critically on my own practice
and to articulate that reflection to myself and others in my office in the
Ministry of National Development Planning, particularly in the Education
Bureau, and to be aware of the difficulties of introducing innovations that
involve dramatic change to the established classroom learning
environment in the education process.
While there are many questions that are left unanswered, this
study and experience has provided me with an incentive to research
further so that I might be able to provide the best explanation and reasons
to implement the cooperative learning method in Indonesian schools.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Referring to the conclusions, the cooperative learning method
influences the development of positive student self-esteem. By considering
students’ and teachers’ perceptions in Western Australia and the
literature review, some recommendations are offered for implementing the
cooperative learning method in Indonesia.
Recommendations for Indonesian teachers:
1. Teachers must create conducive classroom learning environments to
encourage students to participate actively in the learning process.
Therefore, teaching-learning methods must change from teacher-
centered learning to student-centered learning by emphasizing the
constructivism approach.
31
2. The cooperative learning method can be used as alternative teaching
instruction to develop students’ attitude and students’ self-esteem in
Indonesian schools.
3. In the teaching-learning process, teachers must always guide
cooperative groups to make all students engage in group discussion
and learning process as whole.
Recommendations for Indonesian policy-makers:
1. To achieve educational objectives intellectually, emotionally and
socially, education policy studies must give special attention to
learning environments which are conducive to improve not only
students’ achievement but also healthy self-esteem and pro-social
character.
2. Pre-service and in-service training programs must focus not only on
improving teachers competency in subject matter, but also their
capacity to implement cooperative learning methods by introducing
cooperative learning strategies suitable for their schools and classroom
conditions.
3. There must be an on-going process to implement school-based
management in the Indonesian education system give more authority
and freedom to teachers in the teaching and learning process.
Therefore, the role of the National Curriculum Center is not to give
32
detailed rigid guides but to give general direction to be flexibly
implemented by the teachers.
33
REFERENCES
Books and Journals:
Adams, D., Carlson, H. & Hamm, M. (1990), Cooperative Learning &
Educational Media: Collaborative with Technology and Each Other.
New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications Englewood Cliffs.
Aldridge, J.M., Fraser, B.J. & Huang, T.-C.I. (1999). Investigating
classroom environments in Taiwan and Australia with multiple
research methods. Journal of Educational Research, 93, 48-57.
Anderson, L.W. (1989). An Introduction to The Classroom Environment
Study, in Anderson, L.W., Ryan, D.W. & Shapiro, B.J. (Eds.), The
IEA Classroom Environment Study. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Clements, D.H. & Battista, M.T. (1990). Constructivist learning and
teaching. Arithmetic teacher, 38(1), 34-35.
Driver, R. (1981). Pupils’ alternative frameworks in science. European
Journal of Science Education, 3(1), 93-101.
Duit, R. (1991). Student’s conceptual frameworks: Consequences for
learning science, in Glynn, Yeany & Britton (Eds.). The psychology
of learning science. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Publishers.
Fall, R., Webb, N.M. & Chudowsky, N. (2000). Group Discussion and
Large-Scale Language Art Assessment: Effects on Students’
Comprehension. American Educational Research Journal, 37 (4),
pp. 911-941.
Fullan, M. (1982). The Meaning of Educational Change. Ontario.
34
Gilbert, J.K., Osborne, R.J. & Fensham, P.J. (1982). Children’s science
and its consequences for teaching. Science Education, 66(4), 623-
633.
Gillies, R.M. (2000). The Maintenance of Cooperative and Helping
Behaviours in Cooperative Groups. British Journal of Educational
Psychology, 70, pp. 97-111.
Hashweh, M.Z. (1986). Towards an explanation of conceptual change.
European Journal of Science Education, 8(3), 229-249.
Head, J. (1985). The personal response to science. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R.T. (1989). Cooperation and competition:
Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1991), Learning Together and Alone:
Cooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning 3rd Edition.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1997). Cooperative Learning, Values, and
Culturally Plural Classrooms.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Skon, L. (1979). Student Achievement on
Different Types of Task under Cooperative, Competitive and
Individualistic Conditions. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
4, pp. 99-106.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Holubec, E.J. (1990). Circles of Learning.
Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T. & Stanne, M.B. (May 2000). Cooperative
Learning Methods: A Meta-Analysis. Minnesota: University of
Minnesota.
35
Kagan, S. (1985). Dimensions of Cooperative Classroom Structures. In
Slavin, Sharan, Kagan, Hert-Lazarowitz, Webb & Schmuck (Eds.).
Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn, pp. 67-96. New York:
Plenum Press.
Kavvusanu, M. & Harnish, D.L. (2000). Self-Esteem In Children: Do Goal
Orientations Matters? British Journal of Educational Psychology,
70, pp. 229-242.
Knight, G.P. & Bohlmeyer, E.M. (1990). Cooperative Learning and
Achievement: Methods for Assessing Causal Mechanisms. In
Sharan (Ed.). Cooperative Learning: Theory and Research, pp. 1-22.
New York: Praeger Publisher.
Lorsbach, A. & Tobin, K. (1992). Research matters to the science teacher:
Constructivism as a referent for science teaching. NARST News,
5(2), 1-30.
McManus, S.M., & Gettinger, M., (1996). Teacher and Student
Evaluations of Cooperative Learning and Observed Interactive
Behaviours. The Journal of Educational Research, 90 (1).
Meloth, M.S. & Deering, P.D, (1994). Task Talk and Task Awareness
Under Different Cooperative Learning Conditions. American
Educational Research Journal, 31 (1), pp. 138-165.
Nash, C. (1979). The Learning Environment: A Practical Approach to The
Education of The Three-, Four- and Five-Year-Old. Canada: Collier
Macmillan.
Nattive, A., Winitzky, N. & Dricky, R. (1991). Using Cooperative Learning
with Preservice Elementary and Secondary Education Student.
Journal of Teacher Education, 42(3), 216-225.
36
Pieters, J.M., Breuer, K. & Simons, P.R.J. (1990). Learning Environments:
Contribution from Dutch and German Research. Berlin: Springer-
Verlag.
Porter, L. (2000), Student Behaviour: Theory and Practice for Teachers 2nd
Edition. Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Reid, J., Forrestal, P. & Cook, J. (1989). Small Group Learning in the
Classroom. Maryborough: Chalkface Press.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative Learning in Small Groups: Recent Methods
and Effects on Achievement, Attitudes and Ethnic Relations.
Review of Educational Research, 50, pp. 601-608.
Slavin, R.E. (1983). Cooperative Learning. New York: Longman.
Slavin, R.E. (1990). Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice.
New Jersey: Englewood Cliffs.
Slavin, R.E. (1991). Synthesis of Research on Cooperative Learning.
Educational Leadership, 48 (5), pp. 71-82.
Steffenhagen, R.A. (1990). Self-Esteem Therapy. New York: Greenwood
Publishing Group, Inc.
Untung (1993). The Influence of Teaching by the Cooperative Learning
Method on Students’ Levels of Achievement in Physics in First Year
SMA at Palangka Raya Indonesia. Unpublished Master Thesis.
Perth: Curtin University of Technology.
Van Der Werf, G., Creemers, B., De Jong, R., and Klaver, E. (2000).
Evaluation of School Improvement through an Educational
Effectiveness Model: The Case of Indonesia's PEQIP Project,
Comparative Education Review, v44 I p.329.
37
Yager, R.E. (1991). The constructivist learning model: Toward real reform
in science education. The Science Teacher, 58(6), 52-57.
Websites:
http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Resist.ht
ml
Felder, R.M. & Brent, R. (1994a). Navigating the bumpy road to student-
centered instruction.
http://www2.ncsu.edu/unity/lockers/users/f/felder/public/Papers/Cooprepor
t.html
Felder, R.M. & Brent, R. (1994b). Cooperative learning in technical
courses: Procedures, pitfalls, and payoffs.
http://www.clcrc.com/pages/peace.html
Teaching Students To Be Peacemakers
http://www.clcrc.com/pages/conflict.html
Conflict Resolution
http://www.clcrc.com/pages/decision.html
Decision Controversy
http://www.clcrc.com/pages/SIT.html
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. (1998). Cooperative Learning And Social
Interdependence Theory.
http://www.clcrc.com/pages/assess.html
Cooperative Learning And Assessment: Assessing, Evaluating, And
Reporting Student Learning
