Content uploaded by Paulinus Okwelle
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paulinus Okwelle on Aug 09, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
*Corresponding author: E-mail: inibeheetokeren@gmail.com;
Journal of Scientific Research & Reports
23(6): 1-11, 2019; Article no.JSRR.48100
ISSN: 2320-0227
Effect of Cooperative Learning Strategy on Biology
Students’ Academic Performance in Senior
Secondary School in Rivers State
Kingdom-Aaron, Gloria Ibemenji
1
, Etokeren, Inibehe Sunday
1*
and Okwelle, P. Chijioke
2
1
Department of Science Education, Faculty of Education, Rivers State University, Port Harcourt,
Nigeria.
2
Department of Vocational and Technology Education, Faculty of Education, Rivers State University,
Port Harcourt, Nigeria.
Authors’ contributions
This work was carried out in collaboration among all authors. All authors read and approved the final
manuscript.
Article Information
DOI: 10.9734/JSRR/2019/v23i630138
Editor(s):
(1) Dr. Ana Paula da Silveira Simões Pedro, Professor, Department of Education, University of Aveiro, Portugal.
Reviewers:
(1)
Dr. Oribhabor Chinelo Blessing, University of Africa, Toru-Orua, Bayelsa State, Nigeria.
(2)
MarzannaFfarnicka, University of Zielona Góra, Poland.
(3)
Alan Garfield, University of Dubuque, USA.
Complete Peer review History:
http://www.sdiarticle3.com/review-history/48100
Received 20 January 2019
Accepted 05 April 2019
Published 08 July 2019
ABSTRACT
Aims:
This study investigated the effect of cooperative learning strategy on students’ academic
performance in biology in Senior Secondary Schools in Rivers State.
Study Design: Quasi-experimental design.
Place and Duration of Study: Port Harcourt, Rivers State, located in the South-South geo-political
zone of Nigeria, West Africa.
Methodology: The population consist of 2,150 Senior Secondary three biology students out of
which 120 students of intact classes in selected schools formed the sample. Three research
questions and three hypotheses guided the study. The instrument used in data collection was
Biology Performance Test developed by the researchers. The test items were selected from
standardized past questions of Senior School Certificate Examinations conducted by The West
African Examinations Council and validated by two lecturers in Science Education and one lecturer
Original Research Article
Ibemenji et al.; JSRR, 23(6): 1-11, 2019; Article no.JSRR.48100
2
in Measurement and Evaluation. The reliability coefficient was determined by test retest method
using Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient to be 0.78. Mean, standard deviation and t-
test at .05 level of significance were used for data analysis.
Results: The results of the study revealed a significant difference in performance between
students taught biology with cooperative learning strategy and those taught with conventional
lecture method. Students in the experimental group where cooperative learning teaching strategy
was adopted scored significantly higher in biology performance test than those in lecture method
group. There was no significant difference in performance based on gender (male and female) and
school type (public or private).
Conclusion: Cooperative learning strategy is more effective in teaching and enhances biology
students’ performance than the conventional lecture method.
Keywords: Cooperative learning; lecture method; biology; academic performance senior secondary
school.
1. INTRODUCTION
Biology as a subject is the science of life and
deals with the study of living things. The
knowledge of biology prepares students to apply
basic scientific concepts in dealing with
numerous issues encountered on daily basis and
comprehend the natural world. There are three
main divisions of biology – ecology, morphology
(organism structural aspects) and physiology
(organism functional aspects). Several methods
are available for teaching biology in senior
secondary schools. The suitability of a given
method depends on the concept in consideration
and works together with other components of
learning to enhance students understanding and
performance in examinations. One of the
methods that is widely used by teachers is
cooperative learning.
Cooperative learning is a student-centered
instructor-facilitated instructional strategy in
which small group of students are responsible for
their own learning and learning of all group
members [1]. It is an instructional strategy where
the teachers organize students into small groups
which work together and help one another to
learn academic content and reach a common
goal. The teacher maintains and controls the
learning environment, designs learning activities
and social interactions, and structure work
teams. In this strategy every student participates
in the team and there is cooperation among team
members as well as collective effort which
facilitates understanding of subject matter. That
is why Slavin [2] argues that a critical element of
cooperative learning is group team work and
team goals. Cooperative learning can be formal
or informal, but often involves specific instructor
intervention to maximize student interaction and
learning. In formal cooperative learning, students
work together for one or more class periods to
complete a joint task or assignment, while in the
informal cooperative learning small, temporary,
ad-hoc groups of two to four students work
together for brief periods in a class, typically up
to one class period, to answer questions or
respond to prompts posed by the instructor.
The advantages of cooperative learning are
numerous. First, cooperative learning uses both
goal interdependence and resource
interdependence to ensure interaction and
communication among group members.
Changing the role of the instructor from lecturing
to facilitating the groups helps foster this social
environment for students to learn through
interaction. Cooperative learning develops more
friendly relation of students with their classmates
and provide for development of social and
communication skills, increased tolerance and
acceptance of diversity. It promotes active
participation of students in the process of
knowledge construction which in turns help to
develop their interest in the subject [3].
Cooperation in learning is different from
competition. Cooperation which is positive
interdependence, results in resourceful
interaction during which individuals facilitates
each other’s learning effort. On the other hand,
competition which is negative interdependence,
usually results in oppositional interaction, during
which individuals obstruct each other’s learning
effort leading to decreased achievement and
negative relationship. Cooperative learning is
designed to offer incentives to group of students
who work together as a group to achieve a group
task as opposed to non-cooperative activity
where individuals are not intrinsically motivated
to help their classmate towards a common goal.
Cooperative learning finds its usefulness in the
teaching of various science subjects including
Ibemenji et al.; JSRR, 23(6): 1-11, 2019; Article no.JSRR.48100
3
biology at both the secondary and tertiary levels
of education.
There are different methods and models of
cooperative learning. Cooperative learning
methods can be classified into two main
categories: structured team work and informal
group method. The structured team learning
involves rewards based on learning progress of
their members and is characterized by
individual’s accountability which means that
success depends on individuals learning not
group product. Models of structured team
learning are Student Teams–Achievement-
Division (STAD), Teams–Games-
Tournament((TGT) and Cooperative Integrated
Reading and Composition (CIRC). The informal
group method focuses more on social dynamic
of, projects, and discussion than mastery of well
specified content. Examples of models of
informal group learning methods are Jigsaw,
learning together, think-pair-share and group
discussion [1].
Student Teams-Achievement Division
(STAD): This model is most appropriate for
teaching well-defined objectives, such as
mathematical computations and applications,
language usage and mechanics, geography and
map skills, and science facts and concepts [2].
Student Teams-Achievement Division model
(STAD) proposed by Slavin in 1995 consists of
four steps which include, whole-class
presentation, group discussion, test and group
recognition
(1) Whole-class presentation: At this level,
teachers present materials to the whole
class with the aid of technology and
questioning techniques as used in any
other teaching methods.
(2) Group discussion: Afterwards,
heterogeneous teams of four are formed,
based on students’ performance level,
ability, sex, ethnicity and social economic
status, to study the materials and do the
worksheets. Students work within their
teams to make sure that all team members
have mastered the lesson by questioning
and giving elaborated explanations, as
they know they are interdependent and
accountable for themselves and the whole
group.
(3) Test: After the group discussion, all
students take individual test on the
material, at which time they cannot help
one another. Usually, the quizzes are in
the form of multiple-choice questions.
Students test scores are compared to their
own past averages, and points are
awarded based on the degree to which
students can meet or exceed their own
earlier performances. The difference
between the test score and the base score
is then checked against the Improvement
Score Conversion Table can be used to
determine the individual improvement
score which is then entered into the Test
Score.
(4) Group recognition: These points are then
summed to form team scores, the group
with the highest average group
improvement score receives a group
reward. Alternatively, any group which has
its group score reaching a pre-determined
level can receive a group reward. The
whole cycle of activities, from teachers’
presentation to team practice to quiz,
usually takes 3-5 class period. In
Cooperative learning environment there is
positive interdependence and students
perceive that better performance by
individuals produces better performance by
the entire group. Macpherson [4] proposed
several features that can help these
groups work well:
The instructor defines the learning
objectives for the activity and assigns
students to groups.
The groups are typically heterogeneous,
with particular attention to the skills that
are needed for success in the task.
Within the groups, students may be
assigned specific roles, with the
instructor communicating the criteria for
success and the types of social skills that
will be needed.
Importantly, the instructor continues to
play an active role during the groups’
work, monitoring the work and evaluating
group and individual performance.
Instructors also encourage groups to
reflect on their interactions to identify
potential improvements for future group
work.
Motivational and social cohesion theories provide
theoretical basis for this study. The two theories
focus on the interactions among groups of
students and holding these interactions
themselves for better learning and achievement.
The motivational perspective presumes that
motivation is the single most important part of
Ibemenji et al.; JSRR, 23(6): 1-11, 2019; Article no.JSRR.48100
4
learning process asserting that motivation
motivates self-interest. The scholars holding to
this believe focus on reward or goal structure
under which students operate, even going so far
to suggest that in some circumstance’s
interactions may not be necessary for the
benefits of cooperate goal structure to manifest.
By contrast the social cohesion perspective
known as social interdependence theory
proposed by [5] in 1989 suggest that the effect of
cooperative learning is largely dependent upon
the cohesiveness of the group. In this
perspective, students help each other to learn
because they care about the group and its
members and come to derive benefit of self-
identity from group membership [6]. There are
two types of social interdependence. Positive
interdependence which occurs when the actions
of individuals promote the achievement of joint
goals and negative interdependence which
occurs when the actions of individuals obstruct
the achievement of each other’s goals.
Cooperative learning follows the idea that groups
work together to learn or solve a problem.
Conflict occurs in the process of cooperation
between one individual and another [7]. This
conflict creates cognitive dissonance which in
turns encourages learning in different
perspective and cognitive development which
accelerates students’ intellectual development by
forcing them to reach a consensus with other
students whose points of view differ on the
educational task in consideration [8].
Furthermore, [9] posited that human mental
functions and accomplishments have their origins
in social relationships, and that knowledge is
socially constructed through cooperative efforts
to learn and solve problems.
Several studies have explored use of cooperative
learning strategy and its effect on students’
academic performance. For instance, [10]
investigated the effect of cooperative learning
strategy on biology students’ academic
achievement in Yola educational zone of
Adamawa State, Nigeria. The sample of the
study was 372 biology students and Biology
Achievement Test (BAT) the instrument. Results
of the study revealed a significant difference
between performance of students in
experimental group taught with cooperative
learning strategy and control groups taught with
conventional lecture method in favour of
experimental group. Students in the experimental
group performed better than those in lecture
method group. Further evidence from the study
showed that cooperative learning strategy
produced positive effect on students’’ academic
achievement. Muraya and Kimamo [11]
investigated the effects of cooperative learning
strategy on biology achievement of secondary
school students in Machakos District, Kenya
using 183 students as sample and Solomon 4
design with biology achievement test as
instrument. Results of the study revealed that
cooperative learning strategy caused significantly
higher mean achievement scores compared to
regular teaching method. Students who were
taught through cooperative learning strategy
attained significantly higher achievement scores
in biology achievement test compared to those
who were taught through the regular teaching
method. Further findings revealed that gender
had no significant influence on achievement.
Chatila and Al Husseiny [12] investigated the
effect of cooperative learning strategy on
students’ acquisition and practice of scientific
skills using 120 grade 7 Lebanese biology
students. Results of the study showed that
cooperative learning strategy had a significant
effect on students’ achievement in learning and
practicing scientific skills. Further findings
revealed that cooperative learning improve
students thinking since it allows students to
communicate actively with each other. Nnorom
[13] examined the effect of cooperative learning
instructional strategy on senior secondary school
students’ achievement in biology in Anambra
State Nigeria. The study adopted quasi-
experimental design using 111 seniors
secondary (SS1) students in Nnewi Local
Government Area of Anambra State as sample
and Biology Achievement Test (BAT) as
instrument. The results of the study revealed that
students taught using cooperative learning
instructional strategy performed better in biology
achievement test than those taught using lecture
method of instruction. There was no interaction
between method and gender on students’ biology
achievement test.
Molla and Muche [14] evaluated the impact of
cooperative learning strategies on students’
academic achievement and laboratory
proficiency in biology subject in selected rural
schools in Ethiopia. The researcher utilized 369
biology students and 18 biology teachers for the
study. Finding of the study revealed a
considerable increment in biology achievement
and laboratory competence in students exposed
to cooperative learning strategy. Further
evidence showed that there was significant
relationship between students’ academic
Ibemenji et al.; JSRR, 23(6): 1-11, 2019; Article no.JSRR.48100
5
achievement and laboratory proficiency.
Yaduvanshi and Singh [15] examined the effect
of cooperative learning method on biology
achievement of rural and urban students at
Secondary School Level in India. 63 class IX
students and Biology Achievement Test (BAT)
were used as sample and instrument
respectively. The results of the study revealed
that cooperative learning strategy method
enhanced students’ achievement in biology in
favour of rural students. Further finding revealed
that cooperative learning strategy had positive
effect on every student irrespective of their
locality. Students enjoyed group discussion,
team work and group debate. Odagboyi [16]
examined the effect of gender on the
achievement of students in biology using the
jigsaw method and 87 students in SS1 in a
secondary school. Results of the study showed
that there was a significant difference between
the mean scores of male and female students in
biology in favor of the males. This showed that
the males gained more from the jigsaw method
compared with the females.
Cooperative learning strategy has also been
explored in other subject areas. Bukunola and
Idowu [17] for example studied the effectiveness
of cooperative learning strategies on Nigeria
Junior Secondary Students academic
achievement in Basic Science. The sample was
120 students and instruments Achievement Test
for Basic Science students (ATBSS) and Basic
Science Anxiety Scale (BSAS). The results of the
study showed that two cooperative learning
strategies (learning together and jig-saw II
groups) had higher immediate and delayed
academic achievement mean score than the
students in the conventional lecture group.
Learning together and jig-saw II cooperative
teaching strategies were found to be more
effective in enhancing students’ academic
achievement and retention of information in basic
science more than the use of conventional
lecture. According to them when friendliness is
established, students are motivated to learn and
are more confident to ask questions from one
another for better understanding of the task
being learnt. Ajaja and Eravwoke [18] examined
how the adoption of cooperative learning as
instructional strategy for teaching integrated
science influences students’ achievement and
attitude towards the subject. The results
indicated significant higher achievement test
scores of students in cooperative learning group
than those in the conventional classroom. [3]
examined cooperative learning strategy and
students’ academic achievement in home
economics in Oredo Local Government Area of
Edo State. The sample was 169 home
economics students and instrument Home
Economics Achievement Test (HEAT) the
instrument. Findings of the study revealed that
there was a significant difference in the
achievement of home economics between
students exposed to cooperative learning
strategy and lecture method.
Tran [19] investigated the effects of cooperative
learning on the academic achievement and
retention of 110 first –year primary education
students of Giang University, Vietnamm towards
the psychology subject and found that students
who were instructed using cooperative learning
strategy achieved significantly higher scores on
the achievement test and knowledge retention
than students who were instructed using lecture-
based teaching. The study supported the
effectiveness of cooperative learning in
Vietnamese higher education. Hussian et al. [20]
in their study to determine the effect of
cooperative learning on the academic
achievement and self-concept of the students at
elementary school level using 40 students in the
5
th
class discovered that cooperative learning
method was better than lecture method in
development of academic achievement and
academic self-concept of students. Across the
gender, self-concept of female was significantly
better than the male while there was no
difference on academic achievement across
gender and class. There was no significant
difference in achievement test scores between
male and female students in cooperative learning
group and interaction effect between sex, and
ability, sex and method, ability and method
among method, sex, and ability and
achievement.
1.1 Statement of the Problem
Despite the numerous applications of biology in
provision of basic need of man, poor
performance of biology students in Senior School
Certificate Examinations has persisted over the
years. Instructional materials and other learning
facilities which constitutes the school
environment blended with appropriate teaching
method facilitate teaching and learning process.
The use of inappropriate method in teaching
biology renders adequate facilities unproductive
and promote concept difficult, which constitutes a
problem. Several attempts geared toward the
discovery of appropriate method for optimum
Ibemenji et al.; JSRR, 23(6): 1-11, 2019; Article no.JSRR.48100
6
learning of biology have been made. Specifically,
studies have considered the use of different
models of cooperative learning such as jig saw to
establish the effect of cooperative learning on
students’ academic performance without looking
at the Student Team- Achievement Division
(STAD) model, thereby leaving a gap in
knowledge. This study is therefore carried out to
fill this gap in knowledge by investigating the
effect of Student Teams-Achievement
Division (STAD) model of cooperative
learning on students’ academic performance in
biology in Senior Secondary Schools in Rivers
State.
1.2 Purpose of the Study
This study was carried out to investigate the
effect of cooperative learning strategy on
students’ academic performance in biology in
Senior Secondary Schools in Rivers State.
Specifically, this study tends to provide answers
to the following questions:
1.2.1 Research questions
The following research questions were proposed
to guide the study.
1. What is the difference between the
performance of students taught biology
using cooperative learning strategy and
those taught using conventional lecture
method in Senior Secondary Schools in
Rivers State?
2. What is the difference between the
performance of male and female students
taught biology using cooperative learning
strategy in Senior Secondary Schools in
Rivers State?
3. What is the difference between the
performance of public and private school
students taught biology using cooperative
learning strategy in senior secondary
schools in Rivers State?
1.3 Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were developed to
answer the research questions.
HO
1
. There is no significant difference
between the mean performance of
students taught biology using
cooperative learning strategy and those
taught using conventional lecture method
in senior secondary schools in Rivers
State.
HO
2
. There is no significant difference
between the performance of male and
female students taught biology using
cooperative learning strategy in senior
secondary schools in Rivers State.
HO
3
. There is no significant difference
between the performance of public and
private school students taught biology
using cooperative learning strategy in
senior secondary schools in Rivers
State.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study adopted quasi- experimental design.
The population consist of 1,897 Senior
Secondary 3 biology students in 25 Senior
Secondary Schools of Port Harcourt Local
Government Area of Rivers State. 102 Senior
Secondary 3 biology students comprising of 47
male and 55 female students of intact classes in
the selected schools formed the sample. 53
students were in the experimental group and 49
students in the control group. The selected
classes were randomly assigned experimental
and control group in each school. The instrument
was Biology Performance Test (BPT) developed
by the researcher which contains 25 multiple
choice questions based on the contents of the
Senior Secondary School Biology Curriculum.
The items were selected from the West African
Examinations Council Senior Secondary School
Certificates Examination (WASSCE) past
question papers. The instrument was given to
two lecturers in science Education Department
and one lecture in Measurement and Evaluation
for face and content validation while the reliability
coefficient was determined by test –retest
method and calculated to be of 0.78 using
Spearmen’s Rank Order Correlation
Coefficient. Mean, Standard Deviation and t-test
of independent were statistical tools used for
data analysis and hypotheses tested at .05 level
of significance. Students in the experimental
group were taught using cooperative learning
strategy and those in control group were taught
using conventional lecture method. The
lesson lasted for 4 weeks of 2 units each. Before
treatment, the instrument was administered to
the experimental and control group as pre-test
and after treatment as post-test.
3. RESULTS
3.1 Research Question 1
What is the difference between the performance
of students taught biology using cooperative
Ibemenji et al.; JSRR, 23(6): 1-11, 2019; Article no.JSRR.48100
7
learning strategy and those taught using
conventional lecture method in Senior Secondary
Schools in Rivers State?
From Table 1, the pretest mean score of the
experimental and control groups were 38.20 and
39.50 while the posttest mean performance
score of experimental and control groups
were77.5 and 42.30. Students in the cooperative
learning classroom had higher mean
performance score than those in the lecture
method.
Table 1. Mean score of students in biology before and after lesson using cooperative learning
strategy and lecture method
Teaching method
N
Pretest mean
Posttest mean
Mean difference (within)
Cooperative learning 53 38.20 58.50 20.30
Lecture 49 39.20. 45.30 6.10
Mean difference (between) 1.00 13.20 14.20
Table 2. Mean score of male and female students taught bi0logy using cooperative learning
strategy
Gender
N
X
SD
Male 31 53.25 1.98
Female 22 45.39 2.13
Table 3. Mean and standard deviation of the performance score of public and private school
students taught biology with cooperative learning strategy
School type
N
X
SD
Private 25 68.25 2.16
Public 28 55.63 1.21
Table 4. t-test analysis of post-test mean performance score of students taught biology using
cooperative learning strategy and those taught using conventional lecture method
Teaching Strategy
N
X
SD
df
t-cal.
t – crit.
p
Decision
Cooperative learning 53 77.50 5.82 100
2.342 1.960 0.05 Rejected
Lecture method 49 42.30 4.11
Table 5. t-test analysis of pre-test mean performance score of students taught biology using
cooperative learning strategy and those taught using conventional lecture method
Teaching strategy
N
X
SD
df
t-cal.
t – crit.
Sig. level
Decision
Cooperative learning 57 30.20 2.82
118
1.025 1.960 0.05 Rejected
Lecture 63 39.50 1.11
Table 6. t-test analysis of the post-test mean score of male and female students taught biology
using cooperative learning strategy
Gender
N
X
SD
df
t-cal.
t - crit
Sig. level
Decision
Male 31 45.39 2.13
118
1.542 1.960 0.05 Accepted
Female 22 53.25 1.98
Ibemenji et al.; JSRR, 23(6): 1-11, 2019; Article no.JSRR.48100
8
3.2 Research Question 2
What is the difference between the performance
of male and female students taught biology using
cooperative learning strategy in Senior
Secondary Schools in Rivers State?
From the Results in Table 2, the mean score of
male students taught biology using cooperative
learning strategy was 53.25 with standard
deviations of 1.98 while those of their female
counterparts was 45.39 with standard deviations
of 2.13. Male students taught biology using
cooperative learning strategy had higher mean
performance score and higher standard deviation
than public secondary school students.
3.3 Research Question 3
What is the difference between the performance
of public and private school students taught
biology using cooperative learning strategy in
senior secondary schools in Rivers State?
From the Results in Table 3, the posttest mean
score of private senior secondary school
students taught biology using cooperative
learning teaching strategy was 68.25 while those
of their counterparts in public secondary schools
was 55.63. students in private secondary school
taught biology using cooperative learning
strategy had higher mean performance score
than public secondary school students.
3.4 Hypothesis 1
There is no significant difference between the
mean performance of students taught biology
using cooperative learning strategy and those
taught using conventional lecture method in
senior secondary schools in Rivers State.
From Table 4, the t-calculate value of t = 2.342
which is greater than the critical or table of1.960
(p < 0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis which
states that there is no significant difference in
performance between students taught biology
using cooperative learning strategy and those
taught using conventional lecture method is
rejected. This mean that there is a significant
difference in performance between students
taught biology using cooperative learning
strategy and those taught using conventional
lecture method.
From Table 5, the t-calculate value of t = 1.025
which is greater than the critical or table of 1.960
(p < 0.05). This mean that there is no significant
difference in mean performance score between
students taught biology using cooperative
learning strategy and those taught using
conventional lecture method and confirms the
group equivalence showing that the students in
the control and experimental group possess
equal strength before the treatment.
3.5 Hypothesis 2
There is no significant difference between the
performance of male and female students taught
biology using cooperative learning strategy in
senior secondary schools in Rivers State.
From Table 6 above, the calculate value of t =
1.542 is less than the critical or table value of
1.960 (p< 0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis
which states that there is no significant difference
in performance between male and female
students taught biology using cooperative
learning strategy in senior secondary schools in
Rivers State is accepted. This means that there
is no significant difference in performance score
between male and female students taught
biology using cooperative learning strategy in
senior secondary schools in Rivers State.
3.6 Hypothesis 3
HO
3
. There is no significant difference between
the performance of public and private school
students taught biology using cooperative
learning strategy in senior secondary schools in
Rivers State.
From Table 6, the calculate value of t = 0.596 is
less than the critical or table value of 1.960 (p <
0.05). Therefore, the null hypothesis which states
that there is no significant difference in mean
performance between public and private school
students taught biology using cooperative
learning strategy is accepted. This indicates that
there is no significant difference in performance
between public and private school students
taught biology using cooperative learning
strategy in senior secondary schools in Rivers
State.
4. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The results of test of hypothesis 1 (Table 4)
revealed that there was a significant difference in
performance between students taught biology
using cooperative learning strategy and those
taught using conventional lecture method.
Ibemenji et al.; JSRR, 23(6): 1-11, 2019; Article no.JSRR.48100
9
Table 7. t-test analysis of mean score of public and private school students taught biology
using cooperative teaching learning strategy in senior secondary schools in Rivers State
School Type
N
X
SD
Df
t-cal.
t - crit
Sig. level
Decision
Private
20 68.25 3.16
188
0.596 1.960 0.05 Accepted
Public
33 55.63 1.21
Students taught using cooperative learning
strategy performed significantly better than those
taught using lecture method. The results of this
study corroborate the findings of studies by
[13,14,10,15,11,12] where students instructed
with cooperative learning strategy achieved
significantly higher in score than those instructed
using lecture method in independent studies on
effect of cooperative learning strategy on
students’ academic performance in biology. This
results further supports the findings of studies on
the effect of cooperative learning strategy on
students’ academic performance in basic science
by [19,17,18,20] where the effectiveness of
cooperative learning teaching strategy in
teaching basic science were found. The
agreement of the finding of this study with other
studies confirms the effectiveness of cooperative
learning instructional strategy in teaching biology.
The higher performance of students in the
experimental group where lessons were
delivered by cooperative learning teaching
strategy, could possibly be due to the fact that
students took active part in the learning as they
work in groups and exchange ideas during
lessons. This process fosters positive and
independent thinking, enhance their abilities to
integrate and synthesize academic materials and
enhance understanding as reflected in higher
performance scores. Furthermore, students in
the cooperative learning strategy, work together
in small groups to maximize each other’s
learning potentials as they help one another and
share ideas for their mutual benefits which
enhances understanding of concepts.
These features are uncommon in the
conventional lecture group where there is
complete absence of cooperation and exchange
of ideas as the students work independently
without any assistance from each other as they
spend more time listening to what the instructor
says. This explains why [19] advocated for
cooperative learning on the grounds that
cooperative learning stimulates cognitive
activities, promotes higher level of achievement
and knowledge retention. Students in the lecture
method classroom depend on the information
from the teacher and as such remain passive
during the learning process giving room and only
answer questions on teachers’ demand. There is
complete absence of social interaction among
students and teachers. This could possibly
create avenue for unhealthy competition instead
of cooperation which does not foster proper
understanding of facts and information. This
affirms [21] assertion that competition is negative
interdependence, usually results in oppositional
interaction, during which individuals obstruct
each other’s’ learning effort leading to decreased
achievement and negative relationship.
The results of test of hypothesis 2 (Table 6)
revealed that there was no significant difference
in performance between male and female
students taught biology using cooperative
learning strategy. The findings of this study is in
agreement with the results of [13] and [20] where
no significant difference in students’ performance
based on gender was established in their
independent studies on the effect of cooperative
learning strategy on students’ academic
performance. The findings of this study, however
disagree with the results of [16] who found
significant difference in performance between
male and female students taught biology using
cooperative learning strategy with male students
having higher scores than the female students.
The evidence in this study affirm gender equality
in performance and gives credence to
cooperative learning teaching strategy in bridging
the disparity gap in performance with regards to
gender. This possibly could be the consequence
of interaction and exchange of ideas between
boys and girls which foster common
understanding of concepts by both sexes. This is
opposed to lecture method classroom where
individuals work independently without any
exchange of ideas. The results of test of
hypothesis in Table 7 showed that there was no
significant difference in performance between
private and public schools students taught
biology using cooperative learning strategy. This
implies that the cooperation and team work in
this strategy of learning cuts across bot he
private and public sector.
Ibemenji et al.; JSRR, 23(6): 1-11, 2019; Article no.JSRR.48100
10
5. CONCLUSION
Evidence from the results of this study showed
that cooperative learning strategy is effective in
teaching biology. The use of this strategy
enhanced students’ understanding of concepts
and caused a significant improvement in their
performance in biology in senior secondary
schools. There was significant difference in
performance between students taught biology
with cooperative learning strategy and those
taught with conventional lecture method.
Students taught using cooperative learning
strategy obtained higher test scores than those
taught with conventional lecture method. There
was no significant difference in performance
based on gender (male and female) and school
type (public or private).
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations were made
based on the findings of the present study.
Teachers should:
1. Adopt cooperative learning teaching
strategy in teaching biology to enhance
students understanding.
2. Endeavor to motivate students towards the
learning of biology.
3. Encourage students to work together and
discourage independent learning strategy.
4. Government should organize workshop for
training of teachers on the use of
cooperative learning strategy
COMPETING INTERESTS
Authors have declared that no competing
interests exist.
REFERENCES
1. Har LB. Active classroom. Honkong:
Honkong Institute of Education. 2013;1-5.
(Assessed 12 October 2018)
Available:www.ied,edu,hk/aclass
2. Slavin RE. Cooperative learning: Theory,
research, and practice. Needham Heights,
MA: Simon & Schuster Company; 1995.
3. Uwameiye BE. Cooperative learning
strategy and students’ academic
achievement in home economics.
International Journal of Academic
Research in Progressive Educational
Development. 2016;5(3):120-127.
4. Macpherson A. Cooperative learning group
activities for college courses: A guide for
instructors; 2009.
(Assessed 12 October 2018)
Available:http://home.caprcod.net/-
tpanitz/tedsarticles/coopdefinition.htm
5. Johnson DW, Johnson R. Cooperation and
competition: Theory and research. Edina,
MN: Interaction Book Company; 1989.
6. Slavin RE. Instruction based on
cooperative learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.),
Handbook of Research on Learning and
Instruction. London: Taylor & Francis;
2011.
7. Bransford JD, Brown AL, Cocking RR,
(Eds.). How people learn: Brain, mind,
experience, and school. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press; 1999.
8. Johnson DW, Johnson RT, Smith KA.
Cooperative learning: Improving university
instruction by basing practice on validated
theory. Journal on Excellence in College
Teaching. 2014;25(4):1-26.
9. Vygotsky L. Mind in society: The
development of higher psychological
processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press; 1978.
10. Abdullahi S, Ugwandu OR. Effect of
cooperative learning on biology students’
academic achievement in Yola educational
zone of Adamawa State. Knowledge
Reviews. 2102;24(1):1-8.
11. Muraya DN, Kimamo G. Effects of
cooperative strategy on biology mean
achievement score of secondary school
students’ in Machakos District, Kenya.
Educational Research and Reviews.
2011;6(12):726-745.
12. Chatila H, Al Husseiny F. Effect of
cooperative learning strategy on students’
acquisition and practice of scientific skills.
Journal of Education in Science,
Environment and Health (JESEH).
2016;3(1):88-99.
13. Nnorom NR. Effect of cooperative learning
instructional strategy on senior secondary
school students’ achievement in biology in
Anambra State. International Journal of
Cross-disciplinary Subjects in Education.
2015;5(1):2424-2427.
14. Molla E, Muche M. Impact of cooperative
learning strategies on students’ academic
achievement and laboratory proficiency
in biology subject in selected rural
schools, Ethiopia. Education Research
International. 2018;1-9.
Ibemenji et al.; JSRR, 23(6): 1-11, 2019; Article no.JSRR.48100
11
15. Yaduvanshi S, Singh S. Effect of
cooperative learning (STAD method) on
biology achievement of rural and urban
students at secondary school level.
International Journal of Academic
Research and Development. 2018;3(1):
892-896.
16. Odagboyi IA. The effect of gender on the
achievement of students in biology using
the jigsaw method. Journal of Education
and Practice. 2015;6(7):7-15.
17. Bukunola BJ, Idowu OD. Effectiveness of
cooperative learning strategies on Nigeria
Junior Secondary Students academic
achievement in basic science. British
Journal of Education, Society &
Behavioural Sciences. 2012;2(3):307-325.
18. Ajaja OP, Eravwoke T. Effect of
cooperative learning strategy on Junior
Secondary School Students’ achievement
in integrated science. Electronic Journal
of Science Education. 2015;14(1):1-
18.
19. Tran VD. Effects of cooperative learning on
the academic achievement and retention.
International Journal of Higher Education.
2014;3(2):131-140.
20. Hussian L, Abbas A, Nawaz Q, Javed M.
Effect of cooperative learning on the
academic achievement and self-concept of
the students at elementary school level.
Gomal University Journal of Research.
2014;30(2):127-135.
21. Igboanugo BI. Effects of peer teaching on
students’ achievement and interest in
difficult chemistry concepts. International
Journal of Educational Research.
2014;72(2):61-71.
_______________________________________________________________________________
© 2019 Ibemenji et al.; This is an Open Acc ess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any
medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Peer-review history:
The peer review history for this paper can be accessed here:
http://www.sdiarticle3.com/review-history/48100
