Describing the Relationship Between Cooperative Learning Techniques Used and Student Cognitive Processing Capability During College Class Sessions Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Carla Beth Jagger, B. Graduate Program in Agricultural and Extension Education ******** The Ohio State University 2010 M. Examination Committee: Dr. Susie Whittington, Adviser Dr.
Larry Miller Copyright by Carla Beth Jagger 2010 ABSTRACT The purpose of this study was to describe the frequency use of cooperative learning techniques by students enrolled in a university, methods of teaching in non- formal environments course. In addition, the researcher sought to describe student cognitive processing capability when answering higher or lower cognitive level questions during a ten-week university course. Students (N=14) enrolled in a ten-week university, methods of teaching in non- formal environments, course were the convenient population for the study. The researchers randomly assigned each student into one of two groups prior to the first class session; the groups were labeled lower cognitive and higher cognitive.
Each group received a closing reflection at the end of each class session. A bonus question was added to each closing reflection; the lower cognitive group received a closing reflection with a lower cognitive level bonus question, while the higher cognitive group received a higher cognitive level bonus question. The researchers also demonstrated the use of cooperative learning techniques in three lectures during the course. Four instruments were used to describe student use of cooperative learning techniques, and student cognitive processing capabilities on the assignments.
Results were that five of the students used cooperative learning techniques in their microteaching lessons, using a total of three techniques (timed-pair share, jot-thoughts, ii and window-paning), 12 times throughout their lessons. The majority (n=4) of the students who implemented cooperative learning techniques scored in the top 50% on the cognitively weighted final examination. Student answers in the lower cognitive group were assessed as right or wrong; on average, students answered ten questions correctly, three questions wrong, and had one missing closing reflection. The higher cognitive questions were assessed using a critical thinking rubric.
None of the students scored higher than the lowest level of critical thinking as assessed by the rubric. Students in the higher cognitive group had a mean score of 18.9 on the critical thinking rubric, with a total range of 18 to 28. On the final examination, each student was given a weighted score based on the level of cognition for each question asked. The cognitively weighted score of the final examination was 57.8; student scores ranged from 47.6 with a mean of 52.
No significant relationship was found between the students’ cognitive level of competency on the final examination and their processing capabilities when responding to lower and higher cognitive questions. A negligible relationship was found between observed student use of cooperative learning techniques and their cognitive processing capability on the final examination. iii Dedicated to my parents, Dean and Beth Jagger and my Grandparents. Without your love and support I could never have accomplished so much in life.
iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank my advisor, Dr. Susie Whittington, for your encouragement and support over the past several years. I appreciate your guidance and wisdom that you have graciously shared with me as an undergraduate and graduate student. Thank you for pushing me to be a better student, teacher, researcher, and person.
The time and effort you put forth to help me complete my thesis and program requirements will never be forgotten, nor will our countless conversations. I would also like to thank Dr. Larry Miller for serving as a member of my committee. I am grateful for the knowledge and expertise you shared with me through the research process.
Your insight was greatly appreciated and helpful in completing my thesis. Also thank you to my family. Your love and continuous support have allowed me to move forth effortlessly in life. I know I will always have an escape from my day-to- day activities on the farm, as well as plenty of comic relief.
I want to thank God for his unconditional love, and providing me with so many blessings and life experiences that have led me to where I am today. With God all things are possible, and I know He will continue to lead me in the right direction. Finally, I want to thank all of my friends, for their help, support, and countless unforgettable memories. To my roommate, Joy, thank you for always being there no v matter the circumstance.
Whether it pertained to my research, course work, or just lending me an ear to vent, I know I can always count on you. To the 390 crew, Tom, Hilary and Jen, I will never forget the stories and laughter we have shared over the past two years. I am grateful that I had the privilege to work with each of you. Thank you for always being understanding and providing me the time I needed to complete my research.
Also thank you to all of the graduate students for providing me guidance in completing my course work. These past two years have felt like a breeze with all the wisdom you all have shared with me along the way. vi VITA September 25, 1985……………………………………Born, Mount Gilead, Ohio 2008…. Agricultural and Extension Education, The Ohio State University 2008-present………………………………………….Graduate Teaching Assistant, The Ohio State University 2010……………………………………………………M.
Agricultural and Extension Education, The Ohio State University PUBLICATIONS Gill, B. Education in a technological world: An analysis of online teaching resources. Poster Proceedings of the 2010 College of Food, Agriculture, and Environmental Sciences Annual Undergraduate Research Forum, Columbus, OH. Measuring student adoption of cooperative learning techniques and that relationship to their ability to answer higher cognitive questions.
Poster Proceedings of the 2010 North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture Annual Conference, University Park, PA. Describing the relationship between brain activity, higher cognitive teaching techniques, and student achievement. Presentation at the 2009 North American Colleges and Teachers of Agriculture Annual Conference, Stillwater, OK. FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Agricultural and Extension Education vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….v Vita………………………………………………………………………………………vii List of Tables…………………………………………………………………………….xi List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………xii Chapters 1.1 Purpose and Objectives……………………………………………….2 Constitutive Definition of Terms………………………………….…2 Operational Definition of Terms…………………………………….6 Limitations of the Study………………………………………………6 2.
Review of Related Literature…………………………………………….8 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development……………….10 Social Interdependence Theory…………………………….13 Cooperative Learning Techniques………………………….16 Higher Cognitive Questioning………………………………………17 Conceptual Framework……………………………………………. Methods…………………………………………………………………20 Population and Sample…………………………………………….20 viii Research Design…………………………………………………….22 Reliability……………………………………………23 Critical Thinking Rubric…………………………………….23 Validity………………………………………………25 Reliability……………………………………………26 Intra-Rater Reliability……………………….26 Inter-Rater Reliability……………………….27 Microteaching Lab Videos………………………………….29 Closing Reflections…………………………………………29 Critical Thinking Rubric……………………………………29 Final Examination………………………………………….30 Microteaching Lab Videos………………………………….34 Student Use of Cooperative Learning Techniques During Microteaching………………………………………………35 Student Cognitive Processing Capability When Responding to Lower and Higher Cognitive Questions…………………………….36 Lower Cognitive Group…………………………………….37 Higher Cognitive Group………………………………….38 Student Cognitive Level of Competency on the Final Examination……………………………………………….39 Relationship Between Student Cognitive Level of Competency on the Final Examination and Student Cognitive Processing Capability When Responding to Lower and Higher Cognitive Questions……….42 Higher Cognitive Group.……………………………………42 Relationship Between Observed Student Use of Cooperative Learning Techniques in Microteaching and Student Cognitive Level of Competency on the Final Examination……. Conclusions……………………………………………………………45 Student Use of Cooperative Learning Techniques During Microteaching…………………………………………………47 Student Cognitive Processing Capability When Responding to Lower and Higher Cognitive Questions….48 ix Student Cognitive Level of Competency on the Final Examination…………….48 Relationship Between Student Cognitive Level of Competency on the Final Examination and Student Cognitive Processing Capability When Responding to Lower and Higher Cognitive Questions………………………………………………….48 Relationship Between Observed Student Use of Cooperative Learning Techniques in Microteaching and Student Cognitive Level of Competency on the Final Examination…………………………………………………….………………………………51 List of References………………………………………………………………. Student Consent Form…………………………………………….
Florida Rubric for Assessing Critical Thinking Skills…………………. Final Examination: Cognitive Level of Questions………………………61 D. Final Examination: Weighted Score…………………………………….63 x LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.1 Interpretation of Each Construct Score Received on the Florida Rubric for Assessing Critical Thinking Skills……….2 Interpretation of Total Score Received on the Florida Rubric for Assessing Critical Thinking Skills…….3 Cognitive Weighting Factors for Final Examination……….4 The Davis Convention for Describing Relationships……….1 Techniques Used By Students During Microteaching…………….2 Student’s Use of Cooperative Learning Techniques During Microteaching…………………………………………………………….3 Student’s Ability to Answer Lower Cognitive Questions……………….4 Student’s Ability to Answer Higher Cognitive Questions……………….5 Student’s Weighted Score on the Final Examination………….6 Student’s Use of Cooperative Learning Techniques and Their Competency on the Final Examination…………….44 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2.1 Conceptual Framework of Factors Influencing Student Cognitive Processing Capabilities……….19 xii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION In March 2010, the unemployment rate was at 9.7%, as reported by the U. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Those without a job for 27 weeks or more increased to 6.5 million during that month. Teenagers were reported as the most unemployed working group at 26. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2010). During these uncertain economic conditions, educators must equip students with the skills they need for entering a changing workforce.
Cooperative learning gives students the opportunity to work in small groups, which is a skill that most employers expect from new employees (Ravenscroft, 1997). Ravenscroft (1997) pointed out that due to the nature of cooperative learning activities, students are teaching and coaching each other, which improves their learning. Through the coaching and teaching of their peers, students are able to “articulate their cognition and are able to observe and adopt the learning and study strategies of other students” (p. According to Johnson and Johnson (1999), structuring learning situations cooperatively promotes students to work together to achieve group success.
Consequently, when students work together toward a common goal, it typically results in higher achievement and greater productivity than if students work alone (Johnson & 1 Johnson). Additionally, Johnson, Johnson, and Smith (2007) wrote that cooperative learning results in a greater transfer of the content learned from one situation to another, higher-level reasoning, and meta-cognition. Purpose and Objectives of the Study The purpose of this study was to describe the frequency use of cooperative learning techniques by students enrolled in a university, methods of teaching in non- formal environments, course. In addition, the researchers sought to describe student cognitive processing capability given higher or lower cognitive level processing opportunities during a ten-week university course.
The following research objectives guided this descriptive study: 1. Describe observed student use of cooperative learning techniques during microteaching. Describe student cognitive processing capabilities when responding to lower and higher cognitive level questions. Describe student cognitive level of competency on the final examination.
Describe the relationship between student cognitive level of competency on the final examination between those who received lower cognitive level closing reflection questions and those who received higher cognitive level closing reflection questions. Describe the relationship between observed student use of cooperative learning techniques in microteaching and student cognitive level of competency on the final examination. Constitutive Definition of Terms Closing reflection: Assessment given to students at the end of each class session that reinforces retention of the content taught during the class session. 2 Cooperative Learning Techniques: Incorporation of students working in groups to accomplish the same goal (Gillies, 2007; Johnson & Johnson, 1999).
Techniques used by the researchers in this study include: inside-outside circle, jot-thoughts, paraphrase passport, Q-approach, send a star, timed-pair share, and window-paning. Final examination: A 204-point examination testing student content retention of the ten- week university course. Questions were asked at various levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy. Students received the exam during the final class session.
High cognitive competency: Students’ ability to process final examination questions at the application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (1956). Higher cognitive group: Students who received higher cognitive bonus questions on each class session’s closing reflection. Higher cognitive level closing reflection questions: Questions asked to the students in the higher cognitive group. These questions were asked at the application analysis, synthesis or evaluation levels of cognition.
Higher cognitive levels: The upper four levels in Bloom’s Taxonomy of educational objectives in the cognitive domain (Bloom, Engelhart, Furst, Hill, & Krathwohl, 1956). The levels are labeled application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Inside-Outside Circle: Cooperative-learning technique that consists of splitting the class in half.