Summary

1
Summary

• Academic achievement through cooperative
  learning and oral discussion was the focus of the
  present study. According to the
  cognitive-elaboration perspective, students learn
  better when they engage in oral discussion with
  peers. Thus, the effects of cooperative learning
  with structured oral discussion, cooperative
  learning with unstructured oral discussion, and
  individualistic learning were compared.
  Seventy-three students were assigned to one
  condition. Within their condition, all students
  completed a reading assignment, followed by
  individual completion of a retention test. It was
  hypothesized that academic achievement on
  retention tests would be higher among those
  students in a group than in those who studied
  individually. Furthermore, academic achievement
  on retention tests would be higher among those in
  a structured discussion group than those who were
  in an unstructured discussion group.

2
Cooperative Learning

• Cooperative learning includes methods that
  encourage mutual goals among peers and
  cooperative efforts to achieve those goals.
  Students success, in cooperative learning
  groups, depends on their groups success. When
  compared with competitive or individualistic
  learning methods, research has suggested
  cooperative learning has higher academic
  achievement (Johnson, Johnson, Yager, 1985).
  Slavin (1996) has proposed four main theoretical
  perspectives to explain why cooperative learning
  is so successful. These four reasons include
  motivation, social cohesion, developmental, and
  cognitive-elaboration.

3
Oral Discussion

• According to the cognitive-elaboration
  perspective, summarization and elaboration on
  material helps students to learn and retain the
  material in their memory. This perspective
  assumed that oral discussion among peers
  encourages cognitive growth (Slavin, 1996).
  Research on this concept has suggested that
  students engaging in oral discussion have higher
  academic achievement than students in individual
  learning conditions (Johnson, Johnson, Yager,
  1985). Therefore, the present study was concerned
  with the effects of structured oral discussion,
  unstructured oral discussion, and individualistic
  learning on students academic achievement.

4
Methods

• Participants
• Seventy-three middle school students from a
  private middle school in the southeast
  participated in the study.
• Materials
• The materials consisted of a scientific
  article, Cosmic Coincidence from the Nightsky
  magazine, a 26-item quiz covering the material in
  the article, and a stopwatch.
• Procedure
• Each of four classes was assigned to one
  condition, During their normal class period,
  students in each condition were given 20 minutes
  to complete the reading assigned. Following the
  assignment, students were given 10 minutes to
  complete the quiz individually, regardless of
  condition.

5
Conditions

• Students from the structured oral discussion
  condition were instructed on how to discuss the
  material within their groups. Prior to
  completing the reading assignment, students in
  this condition were assigned to a group and to a
  specific task within that group. Role A
  students were instructed to summarize the first
  three paragraphs of the article. Role B
  students were instructed to summarize the last
  paragraph and pictures of the article. While not
  summarizing, students were asked to assist and
  question the other group members.
• Students from the unstructured oral discussion
  condition were only assigned to a group. They
  were not instructed on how to discuss the
  material within their groups. Lastly, students in
  the individual learning condition completed the
  assignment alone.

6
Variables

• The independent variable of the study was the
  type of learning condition to which the student
  was assigned. The three levels of this variable
  were structured oral discussion, unstructured
  oral discussion, and individual learning (see
  Conditions for a description of these levels).
• The dependent variable of the study was
  academic achievement. This variable was measured
  by the percent correct that each student achieved
  on the retention quiz.

7
Results

• Students from structured oral discussion groups
  received higher scores (M62.84) than students
  from unstructured oral discussion groups
  (M59.58). However, students from the individual
  learning condition achieved the highest scores
  (M66.65). When the conditions were compared,
  ANOVA results did not indicate any significant
  relationship, F(2,70).833, pgt.05. Therefore, the
  hypothesis was not supported.
• Students ratings of enjoyment and amount
  learned were positively and significantly
  correlated, but not statistically significant,
  (structured oral discussion, r .568, p lt .05
  unstructured oral discussion, r .558, p lt .05
  individual, r .860, p lt .05).

8
Discussion

• Unlike previous studies, students from the
  individual learning condition achieved the
  highest scores on the quiz. Furthermore, a
  significant difference between the three
  conditions did not exist. Limitations of this
  study included a short time frame, small sample
  size, and administration of the quiz immediately
  following the reading assignment.
• Future studies concerning the
  cognitive-elaboration perspective could compare
  the three conditions over several weeks or
  months. Another suggestion would be to compare
  these conditions among various age groups.