TheEffectofCollaborativeLearningActivitieson

IndividualStudentAchievement

AlexanderMSaslow
NapaHighSchool
TouroUniversity

SubmittedMay2016

SearchTerms
Collaboration,collaborative,performancetask,groupwork,individualachievement,individualmastery,
individualperformance,ProjectBasedLearning,ProblemBasedLearning,directinstruction,English
LanguageLearners,Physics

Abstract
Thiss tudytriedtodeterminetheeffect,ifany,ofc ollaborativelearningactivitiesonindividual
studentachievementonas ummativeassessment.Toaccomplishthisthepretests cores
werec omparedtotheposttests coresoftwogroupsofs tudents:onegroupthatengagedin
collaborativelearningactivities,andanotherthatperformedthes ameactivitiesindividually.The
studentswereallenrolledinaCollegePreparatoryPhysicsc lassatac omprehensivehigh
schoolinNapa,California.Alls tudentsbenefitfromworkinginc ollaborativegroupsinactivities
designedtoteachthec ontent,s upportedbydirectinstruction.Studentswhos truggle
academicallyarebenefitedm orebyworkinginthesegroupsthans tudentswhoarealready
succeeding.

Introduction
WiththeacceptanceoftheCommonCores tandardsforEnglishandMath,therehasbeena
shiftineducationtowardshigherlevelsofc riticalthinking(CommonCore)andawayfromm ore
traditionalrotem emorization,asreflectedinthenews tatewideexam:theCaliforniaAssessment
ofStudentPerformanceandProgress.O neofthem ainwaysthatthistypeofthinkingis
fosteredisthroughc ollaborativeandinquirybasedinstruction(Drouin,2010HodgsonandPang,
2012JeongandChi,2007).W ithins ciencec lassesTheNextGenerationScienceStandards
buildupontheCommonCoreStandardswithinquirybaseds ciencec ontentandEngineering
standards.Teachersarebeingtoldtoemphasizes tudentc enteredandinquirybasedlearning.

Manys chooldistrictsinNorthernCaliforniahavebeenpushingitss choolstoadoptProject

BasedLearningandotherformsofs tudentcenteredinstruction.Teachersareaskedto
implementinstructionwiththeses killsinm ind.Itisimperativethatteachersunderstandthe
possiblebenefitstoheavyuseofc ollaborativelearningactivitiesoverm oretraditionalm odesof
instruction.TheNewTechNetworkhelpsitsm embers choolsimplementthesec hangestothe
teachingneededtoproperlys upportours tudents.TheNewTechNetworks tartedinNapawith
onec harterhighs chool,c alledNewTechnologyHighSchool,whichusesPBLastheirprimary
modeofinstruction.Ithass incegrownintoas ystemtohelpindividuals choolsimplementPBL
intheirowninstruction(NewTechnologyNetwork).Theabilitytoworkandc riticallythinktogether
ingroupsiss eenasnecessarytos ucceedintodaysprofessionalworld,aswellasahighly
effectivewaytolearnnewm aterial.

Project/ProblemBasedLearninghasemergedasaneffectiveinstructionalm odeltoinstillthese
skills(NewTechnologyNetwork).However,Parents,Students,TeachersandAdministratorsare
stillunclearifc ollaborativelearning,ofthetypeexemplifiedbyPBLandProblemBasedLearning
(PrBL),isaseffectiveastraditionalm ethodsofteachingforalls tudents.Researchon
collaborationandPBLasawholeisabundant.Thereislessresearchtobefoundtestingthe
implicitassumptionthatthesem odesofinstructionarebasedupon,thatworkingtogetherin
smallgroupstoc ompletetasksleadstoindividualm asteryofthec ontent.

Anecdotally,its eemsthatthem ostc ommonc omplaintteachersandadministratorsgetabout

PBListhatones tudentendsupdoingallofthework,andtheothers tudentsgetgradesthatthey
donotdeserve.Secondm ostfrequentisthatones tudentisdoingallofthework,andtherestof
theirgroupdoesnothing,whichishurtingthehighachievings tudentsgrade.Thesec oncerns

canbebrokenupintoafewdifferentparts.Firstisthec oncernaboutaccountability,thata
studentsgradeaccuratelyreflectswhattheyhavelearnedanddone.Secondisthatthesehigh
achievings tudentsarebeingheldbackbyworkingwithlowachievings tudents.Third,that
theselowachievings tudentsaren'tdoinganything,andthereforearenotlearninganything.

Asdiscussedabove,thereisverylittleresearchonabasicpremiseofc ollaborativelearning:its
effectonindividualm asteryofc ontentandachievement.Thiss tudyattemptstodetermineif
thereisanym easureableeffectons tudentachievementthatresultsfromc ollaborativelearning
activitiesthroughoutaunitofs tudy.Further,itexploreswhetherthiseffectisdifferentdepending
ontheindividuals tudentspreviousacademicachievement,c urrentm athlevel,andfluencyin
English.

Methodology
PurposeoftheStudy
Thepurposeofthiss tudyistodetermineifthereisam easurabledifferenceins tudentm astery
growthbetweengroupsinvolvedinc ollaborativelearning,andthosenot.Eachgroupwasm ixed
toprovideabalanceofgenders,languageproficiencylevels,m athlevels,andprevious
academicachievement.Masterywasdefinedasboththeabilitytos olvewordproblemsand
algebraicm anipulationtoc alculateac orrectanswer,butalsotheabilitytoapplythisknowledge
inac riticalthinkingexercise.

This study had the possible benefit of addressing the largest concerns about PBL and other
forms ofcollaborativeworkforinstruction. Ithadthepotentialtoshowhowthosehighachieving

studentsareaffectedbyworkingingroupswithlowachievings tudents,andviceversa.

DescriptionoftheStudy
This was a quasiexperimental pretest/posttest control group study. The students were all
enrolled in different periods of the same College Preparatory Physics class with the same
teacher. The control performed the tasks using traditional methods with students working
independently the treatment group performed the same tasks collaboratively. The total number
of participants was 87 students, 59 of which were in the two classes used as the Treatment
Group. The remaining students were from one class, and used as the Control Group. School
records provided participant demographics which included 41 ELLS, 1 special needs student
with an IEP, 34 females/ 53 male, 26 lower SES, and 34 taking at least one AP course. The
study included disaggregated data by these subgroups in the analysis to find out if any
subgroups performed differently. This was a convenience sample, and all of the students inthe
three classes for this studyparticipated.Theclasses werecloselymatchedtoreduceinterfering
factors. The Control Group class was chosen as the Control Group because its demographics
tended to fallbetweenthedemographics oftheothertwoclasses,whichwerecombinedintothe
TreatmentGroup.

Ex Post facto data and teacher/student journals triangulated the data. The pretest/posttest
provided academic growth data, ex post facto data provided comparative data from previous
grades, current mathematics level and midterm GPA. Student learning journals and reports on
performance tasks were also used for comparative data. Since this was within the normal
educational structure of the classes, it was the best, safest way to collect the data. The
teacher/researcher performed all of the data collection and analysis. A summative test was

administered at the end of the study with mathematics and performance tasks totesthighlevel
mastery. This enabled determination of whether each individual student learned the content of
the collaborative task. No remuneration was provided as theseactivities werepartofthenormal
classroom activities. All student names were held anonymous in the data results and
interpretation.

The Treatment group, which consisted of two classes, and Control Group, of only one class,
were taught the same material,andengagedinthesamelearningactivities. Thedifferencewas
that the Control Group engage in Laboratory Experiments and Performance Tasks individually,
while the students in the Treatment Group were working collaboratively in small groups ofthree
to four students. These groups remained the same over the course of the unit of instruction.
The Control group engaged in group work but only for practice problem sets and creative
activities. As shown by Bouwmeester, et al. (2013), Drouin, M. (2010), Hodgson,P.andPang,
M. (2012), Jeong, H. and Chi, M. (2007), and Smith, M. et al. (2009) there is solid evidencethat
working on formative assessments in small groups can have a lasting affect on the individual
students mastery of the content. Unfortunately, these studies were performed using university
ages tudents,andnothighs choolages tudents.

As mentioned briefly above, each group was constructed to contain a mixture of students to
provide a balance of demographics.

Groups were made so there was roughly equal

representation of previous academic achievement, language proficiency, and math levels. This
was done in an effort to maximize the learning in collaborative groups, as discussedinTakeda,
S.andHomberg,F.(2014).

The data was not analyzed until the students names and ID numbers had been removed from
the data, but left in alphabetic order. Theteacherthenanalyzedstudentdatatofindsignificance
with paired t tests. Once statistical significance was determined the data entries were
disaggregated by demographic subgroups. Descriptive statistics provided data on student
growth from the pretest to the posttest. The constant comparative method was used to find
patterns and trends in the journal data. This data will be stored indefinitely on a password
protected account. All demographic data was provided by the school, and was based on its
assessments.

Thefirstsubgroupwas EnglishLanguageProficiency,wherestudents wereclassifiedas Limited

English Proficient (LEP), Redesignated, or Initial Found English Proficient (IFEP) and native
English speakers (English). LEP students are students who are not considered fluent in
English, and are enrolled in additional support classes. Redesignated students are students
who were LEP, but have since tested as fluent. They may still be struggling with English.
IFEP/English students are fully fluent in English. IFEP students learned English as a second
language,butm astereditbeforeenteringtheSchoolDistrict.

The second subgroup was Initial Grade in the Course. This separated students into groups
based on their grade at the start of the unit of instruction. These groups were students who
earned a grade of A or B, earned aC,orearnedaDorF. Thethirdsubgroupwas OverallGPA,
or grade point average,atthestartoftheunitofinstruction. TheweightedGPAwas used,which
means that students doing well in Honors or Advanced Placement (AP) courses earn extra
points towards their grade point average. Students were classified as having a 4.00 or higher,
3.00 to 3.99, 2.00 to 2.99, andless than2.00. Thelastsubgroupwas MathLevelwhichresulted

in students being classified as Math IorMathII,MathIIIorPreCalculus,APCalculus,andOther

orNone.

Since the Control Group is somuchsmallerthantheTreatmentGroup,somesubgroups didnot

have representation within both groups and were dropped from the analysis. Other subgroups
hadonlyasmallnumberofindividuals intheControlGroup,makingtheirsamplesizeverysmall.
These issues could be easily remedied in a followup study by increasing the overall sample
size.

UnitO verview,andCollaborativeLearningActivities
The unit of study was on DC circuitry. Before any instruction, a pretest was given to test
background knowledge of the students. Students were taught about the basics of voltage,
current, resistance, and power for a one resistor circuit which we called a Simple Circuit.
There was a lab activity where students had to determine the resistance of a set of individual
light bulbs using a multimeter and asimplecircuit. This labincludedmuchmoreinstructionand
direction than any other activity in the unit. This is where the students learned how to use the
equipment, enabling them to figure out the procedure for subsequent activities. This section
endedinaquiz,thathadnoquestionsfromthepretestonit.

The second section of the unit was on Series Circuits, and started with a lab activity to findthe
equivalent resistance of a series circuit. Students needed to find the resistance of each light
bulb provided, and then compare that sum with the equivalent resistance of the series circuit.
This section ended with a quiz that repeated some questions from the pretest. The quiz also
included aPerformanceTask,muchlikealabpractical,wherestudents neededtodeterminethe
powerofas eriesc ircuit,andexplaininwritinghowtheworkwasdone.

In the last section the students LearnedaboutParallelCircuits. Theyagaindidalabtocompare

the sum of resistances of each light bulb with the equivalent resistance of the circuit. The
Performance Task was to identify if a circuit was wired in series or parallel, and explain their
evidence. The circuit wiring was inside of a box, so could not be seen. The battery and three
light bulbs were accessible for measurement with the multimeter, however. The quiz repeated
all questions from the pretest, as well as some additional calculations. Although this is where
the study ended, the rest of the unit followed the same pattern, but taught about Complex

Circuits, which were defined as circuits withparallelandseries sections. Twocomplexcircuits

were discussed in depth: a parallel circuit with a series section on one branch, and a series
circuit with a parallel section. Throughouttheunitofinstruction,students filledinaLearningLog
torecordtheirreflectionsonthelearningactivitiestheyparticipatedin.

The collaborative learning activities focused on here were the Lab Activities, and the
Performance Tasks. The treatment groups did these in smallgroups,withverylittleinstruction.
The control group was allowedtodosomeplanninginsmallgroups forthelabactivities,buthad
to do the measurements and calculations on their own. The control group did all of the
Performance Tasks alone. In all cases the teacher was present to provide hints and guiding
questions, however much of the planning and critical thinking was done independent of outside
influence.

For the two lab activities the group read the prompt and had to write a proceduretoanswerthe
stated question. This involveddeterminingtwomethods forcalculatingtheequivalentresistance
of the circuit, which can be thought of as the total resistance of a circuit, and then figuring out
how to makethenecessarymeasurements. Students wereprovidedwithamultimeter,andhad
received prior instruction in how to use it to measure voltage and current. The teacher was on
hand to check to make sure students were using the device correctly, and provide additional
instruction when necessary. For these labs simple incandescent light bulbs were used as
resistors.

For the series circuit lab activity their first method was to determine the equivalent resistance
using the total voltage used by the resistors, and the current in the resistors. Their second

method was to determine the individual resistance of each resistor, and find the sum. They
werethenaskedtoc omparethesetwoquantities,whichs houldbeidentical.

For the parallel circuit lab activity they were asked to determine the equivalent resistance of a
parallel circuit using two methods, as before. Thefirstmethodtheyweretouse,whichtheyhad
to identify with limited instructionfrom theteacher,was tofindtheequivalentresistancefrom the
total voltage used and thetotalcurrentinthecircuit,as before. Theyneededtofigureouthowto
measure these quantities,againwithonlylimitedinstruction. Fortheirsecondmethodtheywere
asked to make a prediction about the mathematical relationship between the resistances of the
individual resistors and the equivalent resistance. As expected, moststudentassumedthatthe
equivalent resistance would be the sum of the individual resistances, as it is in a series circuit.
Only a few groups identified that the split in the currentwouldresultinthis notbeingtrue. Once
they had a hypothesis, they were to measure the voltage used by, and the current in, each
resistor. Using this they were abletocalculatetheresistanceoftheresistors,andfindthesum.
Theywereaskedtocomparethis sum withtheequivalentresistance,whichwas asmallfraction
of what they predicted it would be. This was then used during lecture to teach the correct
mathematicalrelationship.

The two Performance Tasks were run like lab practicals. The students were given a specific
question that they had to answer, andthenhadtodeterminehowtoansweritandkeeparecord
of their measurements. In many ways they were similar to the lab activities, but without any
involvement from the teacher. During the lab activities the teacher corrected them while they
made mistakes, but during the Performance Tasks mistakes went uncorrected. TheTreatment
group did this in their small groups, but the Control group did it alone. During lab activities the

10

control group was allowed to confer with people during the planning stage, but for these tasks
theywereaskedtoworkindividuallyfortheentireprocess.

Picture1.Thes econdPerformanceTaskinvolvedidentifyinghowthec ircuitwithintheboxwas

wired:ins eriesorinparallel.Studentsalsoneededtowriteandhandinareportdetailingtheir
findings,andwhattheydidtogetthem.

The first performancetaskwas toidentifythetotalpoweroutputofaseries circuit. This required

that the current and voltage is measured, and a different equation than that used in the lab
activities is used. Students could do this by measuring the voltage used by each individual
resistor, and the current in the circuit. Thesum ofthepowerofeachindividualresistorgavethe
power of the circuit. Students couldalsousethecurrentinthecircuit,andthetotalvoltageused
bythec ircuittodirectlyc alculatethetotalpowerofthec ircuit.

The second performance task was to identify whether a circuit was wired in series or parallel,
and to givereasoningexplainingthechoice. Inthis taskthestudents weregivenaboxwiththree
light bulbs on it. A battery was placed next to the box. The wires go from the battery into the
11

box, hiding how they were connected, and then separate wires connected to each light bulb.
The circuit could be wired in series or in parallel, and using voltage and current measurements
the students need to correctly identify what the circuit is. Half of the groups or individuals were
presented with a series circuit, and half with a parallel circuit. They also needed to write a
simple one page report explaining their conclusion, and how they reached it. In this report they
needed to explain what they would expect to seeifthecircuithadbeenseries,andifithadbeen
parallel.Theythenc omparedthesepredictionstothedatatheyactuallyc ollected.

At the end of the study a summative test was given, which contained two parts. The first part
was the posttest, the same 10 questions that the students had been given at the beginning of
the unit in the pretest. The second piece was two free response questions totesttheabilityof
thes tudentstoapplytheirknowledgetoarealproblem.

Results

Thefirstthingdeterminedwaswhetherthedifferencebetweenthepretests coresandthe
posttests coresweres tatisticallys ignificantfortheTreatmentandControlgroups.Atwotailed
pairedttestwasruntoc omparethedatas etsforeachgroup.FortheTreatmentGroupt=
14.2,andp<0.00001,m akinganydifferencec learlys ignificant.FortheControlGroupt=6.1,
andp<0.00001,agains tatisticallys ignificant.

Studentdatawasc ollectedontheirPreTests cores,PostTestScores,s coresontwo

PerformanceTasks,s coreontwoFormativeAssessments,fromjournalsthes tudentskept,and

12

aquestionnairegiventotheTreatmentgroupattheendofthes tudy.Thes coresfromthe

variousassessmentsweredisaggregatedintothes ubgroupsdiscussedinTable1.

Means coresforeachs ubgroupwerec alculatedforeachassessment,ass howninTable1and

Table2.Growthforeachs ubgroupwasdeterminedbyfindingthedifferenceinthePostTest
scoresandPreTests cores.ThedifferenceingrowthbetweentheTreatmentandControl
groupswasfoundbytakingthem eanTreatmentGroupGrowthands ubtractingthem ean
ControlGroupGrowth.Growth,ratherthans trictlylookingatthefinals core,waslookedatto
dealwithdifferencesininitialPreTests cores.GiventhatthePreTestandPostTestwasonly
tenquestionslong,differencesoflessthanoneandahalfpoints,or15%,werenotc onsidered
strongenoughtobeindicative.
Control
Subgroup

MeanPreTest
Score

MeanPostTestScore

GrowthofMeans

LEP

3.4

4.8

0.4

Redesignated

2.8

7.3

3.7

IFEP,
ENGLISH

3.8

6.7

2.9

A,B

3.6

7.0

3.4

3.3

5.5

0.3

D,F

3.1

5.0

1.1

4.0+

3.3

7.3

4.0

3.0+

3.3

6.5

3.3

2.0+

3.6

7.1

2.8

2.0

3.0

3.0

1.0

APCalculus

3.0

7.0

4.0

Math3,
PreCalculus

3.4

6.7

2.7

Math1,Math2

4.0

4.5

0.5

Table1.Them eans coresforthepretestandposttestforforeachs ubgroupintheControl

Group.Thelastc olumns howsthegrowthofthes ubgroupbetweenthetwoassessments.Both
assessmentswereoutoftenpoints.

13

Treatment
Subgroup

MeanPreTest
Score

MeanPostTestScore

GrowthofMeans

LEP

2.60

5.00

1.40

Redesignated

2.27

7.57

5.29

IFEP,
ENGLISH

3.08

7.43

4.08

A,B

3.37

8.11

4.67

2.75

7.06

4.31

D,F

2.56

6.29

3.13

4.0+

3.38

8.13

4.75

3.0+

3.05

8.00

4.52

2.0+

2.47

6.63

4.16

2.0

2.60

6.25

2.67

APCalculus

2.20

8.00

5.80

Math3,
PreCalculus

2.89

7.67

4.44

Math1,Math2

3.13

6.13

2.63

Table2.Them eans coresforthepretestandposttestforforeachs ubgroupintheTreatment

Group.Thelastc olumns howsthegrowthofthes ubgroupbetweenthetwoassessments.Both
assessmentswereoutoftenpoints.

Allbutones ubgroups howedgrowthregardlessofwhethertheywereintheTreatmentor

ControlGroup.Thats aid,eachTreatments ubgroups howedhighergrowththantheirControl
Groupc ounterpart.Them osts trikingdifferencesingrowthwerefoundins ubgroups
representinglowerachievings tudents.Studentswhos tartedthes tudywithaCinc lass,
studentswhos tartedthes tudywithaDorFinc lass,s tudentss tartingthes tudywithlessthana
2.00GPA,ands tudentsenrolledinMath1andMath2s howedthegreatestdifferenceingrowth.

14


Figure1.Foreachs ubgroup,them eangrowthfromthebeginningofthes tudytotheendis
shown.M eanTreatmentG roupgrowthiss hownnexttom eanControlG roupgrowthfor
comparison.

Asc anbes eeninFigure1,onlyones ubgroups howednegativegrowth:theControlGroupof

Studentswithlessthana2.00GPA.Thisparticulars ubgrouphadonlythrees tudentsinit,and
soraisesquestionsaboutitsvalidityduetos malls amples ize.Itwasleftintodemonstratethat
acrossalls ubgroupstheTreatmentGroups howedm oregrowththantheControlGroup.
Otherwiseitisc learthattheTreatmentGroups howeds ignificantlym oregrowthoverthec ourse
ofthes tudythantheControlGroup.

Thedifferenceinthes ummatives cores,ofwhichtheposttestwasapartof,between

TreatmentandControlGroupswasalsoc alculated,asanadditionalm easurebywhichto
measuretheeffectofc ollaborativelearning.

15


Figure2.Forthes ubgroupsrelatingtopreviousacademicachievement,thes coresonthe
summativeassessmentares hown.M eanTreatmentG roups coresares hownnexttom ean
ControlG roups coresforc omparison.Theseresultsarethes coresbeforetheassessment
wasc urved.

Studentsgenerallyc onsideredhighachievingarethosewithhighgradesinthec lass,andhigh

GPAs.Theses tudentsdidnots howas ignificantamountofbenefitfrombeingintheTreatment
Group,whichisc ommoninresearch.Astheachievementlevelofthes tudentdecreases,
however,thebenefitgrows.Lookingats ummativeassessments coresalone,s tudentswithaD
orFinthec lass,andthosewithaGPAoflessthan2.00,experiencedthegreatestbenefitfrom
beingintheTreatmentGroup.

Atthec onclusionofthes tudytheTreatmentGroupwasgivenaquestionnaireabouttheir

perceptionsofthes tudy.Thefirstquestionaskedthemwasaboutwhetherornottheyfeltthat
thec ollaborativelearningactivitieshelpedthemlearnthec ontent.

16


Figure3.TreatmentG roups tudentsgenerallyreportedneutralfeelingsabouthowc ollaboration
helpedtheirlearning.Additionally,m anym ores tudentsagreedthatthec ollaborationhelped,
ratherthanhindered.

Somes tudentsreportedthattheywere,byandlarge,ambivalentinregardstothec ollaboration.

Thats aid,s ignificantlym ores tudentss aidtheyfeltthec ollaborationhelpedthemlearn,than
studentswhofeltthatithinderedthem.GiventhegrowthfromthePreTesttoPostTest,this
demonstratesadisconnectionbetweenthes tudentsperceptionsoftheeffectofc ollaborative
learningactivities,andtheactualeffect.Thisis,generally,s upportedanecdotallybythe
teachersindividualexperience.Evengiventhisdiscrepancybetweenperceptionandreality,itis
indicativethatonlyafews tudentsfeltthatthec ollaborationgotinthewayoftheirlearning.

Whens tudentswereaskedm ores pecificquestions,however,theresultswerequitedifferent.

Whenaskedifthec ollaborationhelpedkeepthemontask,thes tudentsoverwhelminglys aidthat
itdid.Thisdespitethefactthatoneofthebiggestc omplaintsheardaboutthec ollaborationwas

17

thenumberofofftopicc onversationsitengendered.Itisimportanttonotethatanecdotallythe
teacherdidnotnoticeadifferenceinnumberorlengthofofftopicbehaviour.

Figure4.Studentsgenerallyreportedthatworkingtogetheringroupshelpedk eepthemontask.

Thes tudentsoftheTreatmentGroupwerealsoaskedtwoopenendedquestions.Theresults
ofthesequestionsalignedwiththoseoftheengagementquestionsdiscussedabove.Students
recalledm anym orepositiveexperiencesofhowthec ollaborationaffectedtheirpersonal
learning,thannegative.W henaskedtodescribeaparticularincident,over75%ofthes tories
wereabouthowtheywerehelpedbecauseofthec ollaboration.W henaskedtodescribehow
theirlearningc hangedwheninc ollaborativegroups,over65%reportedpositiveeffects.The
biggests tatedc hangewastheirabilitytohelpandgethelpfromothersinthegroupreadily.

18

Figure5.W henaskedtodescribeaneventthatillustrateshowthec ollaborationaffectedtheir

learning,am ajorityofs tudentsrecalledpositiveexperiences.

Figure6.W henaskedtodescribehowtheiroveralllearningc hangedbecauseofc ollaboration,a

majorityofs tudentsreportedtherewasapositiveeffect.Thiswasoftentimesdonewitha
reluctanttone.

19

Summarya ndConclusion

SummaryoftheResults

Alls tudentss eemtobenefitfromusingc ollaborativelearningactivitiesasam ethodofdelivering

content.Thesegroupswerem ixedbygender,languageproficiency,m athlevel,andc urrent
gradeinthec lass.Studentswhowerealreadydoingwellinthec lass,ands tudentswithvery
highGPAsoverall,s howeds lightlym oregrowththans imilars tudentswhoengagedinthese
sameactivitiesindividually.Thebiggestdifferencewasbetweens tudentswithlowgradesinthe
class,andlowoverallGPAs.Theses tudentswhoparticipatedinc ollaborativelearningactivities
showedm anytimesm oregrowththans imilars tudentswhodidthes ameactivitiesindividually.

Languageproficiency,s urprisingly,didnots eemtobeanindicatorofwhetherthec ollaborative

learningactivitieswouldbebeneficial.

ImplicationsforInstruction

Thiss tudys uggeststhatm orec ollaborativelearningactivitiesasam odeofinstructions houldbe

used.Despitethec omplaintsofs tudents,andothers,thereisnoilleffectforanys tudent
associatedwithparticipationinc ollaborativeactivitiesasopposedtoindividualactivities.Thisis
notanadvocationfortheremovalofdirectinstructionentirelyasam ethodofdeliveringc ontent
tos tudents.Rather,thes tudyhighlightsthats tudentsarec apableoflearningc omplexand
technicalc ontentbyfiguringitoutforthemselves,andusingtheirknowledgeinpractical
applications.

20


Workingc ollaborativelyingroupsonactivitieswithlittleinstructionprovidesm ultipleopportunities
tofurtheras tudent'sunderstanding.Asones tudenthelpsanothertounderstandac omplex
idea,theyareforcedtoassimilatetheknowledgeatam uchdeeperlevel.Thisnotonlyhelpsthe
others tudentslearnthec ontent,butalsoprovidesthehelperwithahigherdegreeofm asteryof
thec ontent.W hennooneinthegroupalreadyhastheanswer,havingas mallgrouptobounce
ideasoffofenablesthegrouptoanswerquestionsthatwouldotherwisebeverydifficultfor
individualstofigureout.

Itishighlylikelythatthisisam ainreasonbehindthes uccessofProjectandProblemBased

Learning.Studentsdoverywell,andareneverhurt,byworkingtogetheringroupsina
collaborativem anner.

CollaborationandAccountability

Them ainc oncernsraisedatthebeginningofthiss tudyallarosefromtheissueof

accountability.W hatifonlyones tudentdoesallofthework?Isitfairfors omeonewhodoesnt
dotheworktogetthes amegrade?Arenthighachievings tudentshurtbybeingforcedtodrag
theirlowachievingpeersalongwiththem?

Thesec oncernsarem ostlym itigatedbyfocusingonc ollaborative,ratherthanc ooperative,

groupwork.Cooperativeworkwasdefinedtothes tudentsaswheneveryonehasajobtodo,
andeveryonedoesit.Anexamplewouldbeaposterpresentationwhereones tudentm akesthe
poster,anotherwritesthepaper,andathirddoestheoralpresentation.Projectsthatrelypurely

21

onc ooperations ufferfromalackofaccountability.Ifs tudentsarenots omehowheld

accountablebytheirpeersorteacher,m anydonotdotheirfairs hareofthework.

Collaborativework,however,wasdefinedtothes tudentsaswheneachm emberofthegroup

workstogetherofeachpart.Anexamplewouldbepeoplebrainstormingideasandc reatinga
storyboardforavideobeingc reated.Insteadoftasksbeingassignedtoindividuals,eachtaskis
assignedtothegroup.Thegroup,asawhole,engagesineachpiece.Inthiss ituationitis
nearlyimpossibleforas tudenttonotbeapartofthework.W hentheyc ompletelydisengage,
anddonothing,itisobvious.Ateacherc anthenremindthegroupthattheyc anonlym oveonto
thenexttaskwheneverym emberunderstandsandhasc ontributed.Thedisengageds tudent
mustdos omeoftheworkforthegrouptos ucceedatall.Formativeassessmentsc ouldbe
usedasam eansofm easuringm asteryoftheses tudentsoverthec ourseoftheunit.

FutureResearch

Thiss tudyopensupm anypossibleavenuesforfurtherresearch.Mostobviouslyiss calingthis

studyuptoalargers amples ize,anddetermineifthefindingsares imilar.As imilars tudyc ould
alsobedonewhereallthec ollaborativelearningactivitiesarepartofalargerproject.Another
possibles tudyc ouldc omparem ultiplec lasses,whereeachonewoulddeliverc ontentadifferent
way:byc ollaborativelearningactivitiesonly,bydirectinstructiononly,byindividuallearning
activitiesonly,andthenafewc lassesthatusedifferentm ixturesofm ethods.

22

WorksCited

Bouwmeester,etal.(2013).O nlineformativetestslinkedtom icrolecturesimprovingacademic

achievement.M edicalTeacher,35,1
0441046.

CaliforniaAssessmentofStudentPerformanceandProgres.(2016).http://www.caaspp.org/

CommonCoreStateStandardsInitiative.(2016).http://www.corestandards.org/

Drouin,M.(2010).GroupBasedFormativeSummativeAssessmentRelatestoImproved
StudentPerformanceandSatisfaction.TeachingofPsychology,37,1
14118.DOI:
10.1080/00986281003626706

Hodgson,P.andPang,M.(2012).Effectiveformativeeassessmentofs tudentlearning:as tudy

onas tatisticsc ourse.Assessment&EvaluationinHigherEducation,37(2),215225.
DOI:10.1080/02602938.2010.523818

Jeong,H.andChi,M.(2007).KnowledgeConvergenceandCollaborativeLearning.Instructional
Science,35,287315.DOI10.1007/s112510069008z.

NewTechnologyNetwork.(2016).http://www.newtechnetwork.org/

NextGenerationScienceStandards.(2016).http://www.nextgenscience.org/

Smith,M.etal.(2009).W hyPeerDiscussionImprovesStudentPerformanceonInClass
ConceptQ uestions.Science,323(5910),122124.DOI:10.1126/science.1165919

Takeda,S.andHomberg,F.(2014).Theeffectsofgenderongroupworkprocessand
achievement:ananalysisthroughs elfandpeerassessment.BritishEducational
ResearchJ ournal,40(2),373396.DOI:10.1002/berj.3088

23