Cooperative learning: Exploring its effectiveness in the Physics classroom

Data analysis

Students' academic achievement

The students' academic achievement was analysed using the difference in mean marks achieved between the pre- and post-intervention tests for both topics. For the topic on ‘Current Electricity', the CL class achieved a mean mark of 4.512 and 17.098 for the pre- and post-intervention tests respectively. For the topic on ‘D.C. Circuits', the mean marks achieved were 4.539 and 17.128 for the pre- and post-tests respectively. For both topics, the improvements are quite consistent. These results are illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Difference in Mean Marks for CL Class

Paired t-tests performed on the mean pre- and post-intervention test scores on both topics (Current Electricity and D.C. Circuits) of CL class showed results were significant as both p-values were less than 0.05 (see Table III).

Table III: Comparing the mean pre- and post-intervention test scores of CL class

Topic	Paired Difference		p-value
Topic	Mean	Std Deviation	p-value
Current Electricity	12.586	4.589	0.000
D.C. Circuit	12.590	5.660	0.000

For the TT class, the mean mark achieved for the pre-test was 3.789 while the mean mark for the post-test was 17.361 for the topic on ‘Current Electricity'. For the topic on ‘D.C. Circuits', the mean mark achieved for the pre-test was 5.000 while the mean mark for the post-test was 8.000. Figure 2 illustrates these results.

Figure 2: Difference in Mean Marks in TT Class

Table IV illustrates the mean scores achieved in the post-interventions scores for both the CL and the TT class for both topics.

Table IV: Comparing the mean post-intervention test scores of CL and TT class

Sample	Topics	Mean post test score	Standard deviation
CL class (N=41)	Current Electricity	17.098	4.048
CL class (N=41)	D.C. Circuits	17.128	4.878
TT class (N=39)	Current Electricity	17.361	4.722
TT class (N=39)	D.C. Circuits	8.000	4.928

Independent t-tests performed on the mean post-intervention test scores of CL class and those of the TT class showed that there was no significant difference in the results for ‘Current Electricity' as the p value of 0.906, is greater than 0.05. However, for the topic on ‘D.C. Circuits', the difference in results was significant as the p value = 0.000, ie. less than 0.05.

Students' understanding of Physics concepts

Students' journals in the CL class were evaluated on how students understand the concepts in 'Current Electricity' and ‘D.C. Circuits'. The 6 Facets of Understanding (Wiggins & McTighe, 2001) were used to gauge pupils' understanding. All the pupils were able to recall 3 items (such as definitions, formulas, measuring instruments, and so forth). In one of the journal entries in response to a particular series circuit and the prompt: “Dave said that the ammeter reading was 0.6 A, while Jane said it was 0.3 A. Mike argued that the ammeter reading should be 0.2 A. Who do you think is right? Explain your answer.”; 23 students demonstrated the facet ‘explanation', 38 students demonstrated the facet ‘interpretation' 41 students demonstrated the facet ‘application' while 23 demonstrated the facet ‘perspective'.

The students who demonstrated the facet of 'explanation' were able to give at least a 'developed explanation', that is, an account that reflects some personalized ideas. Some of the students were also able to give 'in-depth explanation', supporting their answers with electricity concepts which they have learnt. A typical explanation was:

"Mike is right. As the current is same through every component, the total current supplied from the battery (is) shared between components. Therefore resistance is 2 + 4 = 6 Ω, using the formula V = IR."

The thirty eight students who demonstrated the facet 'interpretation' were able to give a helpful interpretation of how Dave and Jane arrived at their answers. All forty one students were skilled in applying the knowledge learnt in this journal prompt. The twenty three students who demonstrated the facet 'perspective' indicated that they were aware of different points of view and were able to give a reasonably critical and comprehensive look at all the points of view. For example, one student, Gloria, wrote,

"Dave is wrong as he uses = 0.6 A. It is wrong because the potential difference in each resistor is different, thus he cannot use 1.2 V divided by 2 Ω. Jane is wrong too as she uses = 0.3 A. The reason is the same as Dave. The e.m.f of the circuit is only for the total resistance."

In another journal entry associated with a parallel circuit, where the prompt was: “In the following circuit, one of your group members said that the effective resistance is 5 Ω. Is he/she correct? If not, explain to him/her how you would find the effective resistance of the circuit. Explain also how you would find the current that passes the 2 Ω and 3 Ω resistors.”; 15 students demonstrated the facet ‘explanation', 30 students demonstrated the facet ‘interpretation' 35 students demonstrated the facet ‘application' while 15 demonstrated the facet ‘perspective'. As in the previous case, those who demonstrated the facet 'explanation' were able to give 'detailed' or 'in-depth' explanation of how they arrived at their conclusions. This facet was only shown in fifteen journal entries as the rest of the students did not give any explanation. They only wrote down the correct solution, which was what would normally be required in answering a typical 'O' Level Science(Physics) examination question. The students who demonstrated the facet ‘interpretation' were able to interpret how the wrong answer was derived by one of the group member (as in the journal prompt) due to wrong concepts and formula used. In finding the effective resistance, a typical explanation from the students was,

"No. He/She is wrong.

R = 1.2 Ω.

The correct formula is by using as it is in parallel. He/She is wrong because she probably uses the series formula which is R = R₁ + R₂ ."

The other facets were not demonstrated as it was not possible to interpret these facets accurately from the students' journals entries alone.

Students' motivation to learn

The effects of using cooperative learning on pupils' motivation to learn were examined through the analysis of the pre- and post-perception surveys. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 illustrate the results of the perception surveys. At the end of the study, more students like Physics lessons, ask scientifically oriented questions, like to learn things that are challenging, able to complete Physics homework on time, enjoy group work, prefer learning in group than alone, felt that group work has aroused their interest in learning Physics and have learnt from their group members.

Figure 3.1: Motivation to Learn

Figure 3.2: Motivation to Learn