‘ :q u n ma .e :QqQ1Q «- nun... ...nn.x --.‘. WINTINNi r“ T i LIBRARY Michigan State University ———— A} ———— This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE EFFECTIVENESS OF HETEROGENEOUS “COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS IN THE TEACHING OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION AT THE POSTSECONDARY LEVEL presented by Rose Ann SadTer Swartz has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. dfigfiehlEducationaT Administration ,.//7 1/41/0/9 w’“ A.n/_/1,4/}/1/1/ Major professor Date (“flit/ski MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE MSU Is An Affirmative ActiorVEqual Opportunity Institution czhlmmma-DJ THE EFFECTIVENESS 0F HETEROGENEOUS COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS IN THE TEACHING OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION AT THE POSTSECONDARY LEVEL BY Rose Ann SadTer Swartz A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partiai fulfiiiment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration T989 effee Bush grou COOpt on h and ' in tl test' Eng]- assig assiq Writ Pret. rese. ABSTRACT THE EFFECTIVENESS 0F HETEROGENEOUS COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS IN THE TEACHING OF BUSINESS COMMUNICATION AT THE POSTSECONDARY LEVEL By Rose Ann Sadler Swartz A quasi-experimental study was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of cooperative learning groups in the teaching of Business Communication II at the postsecondary level. The treatment group (n = 30, one section) participated in heterogeneous cooperative learning groups. Students were assigned to triads based on high school grade point average (GPA) categories of high, mid, and low. The control group (n = 89, three sections) was instructed in the traditional lecture-discussion method. A nonequivalent control group design with pretesting and post- testing was used. The pretest ability measures included ACT scores, English llZ (n~ equivalent, high school GPA, and pretest, writing assignment. The posttest ability measure was a final writing assignment. The pretest and posttest attitude measures were the Writing Attitude Inventory and the Group Work Attitude Inventory. Pretest analysis indicated that the two groups were similar. Quantitative and qualitative measures were used to address four research questions. The first research question concerned the diff cont ence ate vari ment ment gain difft cour: regre achie Qual grou; skill teach instr Rose Ann Sadler Swartz differences in attitudes toward writing and group work between the control and treatment groups. MANOVA revealed significant differ- ences (p = .Ol) in attitudes as measured by the posttest. Univari- ate F-test revealed that the significance was limited to two variables: Perception of the Writing Teacher (p = .00) and Involve- ment in Group (p = .Ol). A t-test analysis revealed that the treat- ment group had a higher mean score on both scales. The second research question concerned the writing achievement gain between the control and treatment groups.' A t-test revealed no difference (p = .945) in the posttest means for writing achievement. The third research question concerned the relationship of pre- course ability and attitudes to achievement. Step-wise multiple regression revealed that three variables predicted 39.3% of writing achievement: Prewriting, ACT English, and Value of Group. The fourth research question was answered by analyzing qualitative data gathered from students’ evaluations of their groups. Students’ comments revealed the devel0pment of cooperative skills. The use of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups in the teaching of business communication was an effective alternative instructional strategy. coop have sup: indi Hick and thei assi Mari Carc Pers PFOd IECE disC myp ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The process of writing this dissertation has been truly a cooperative learning experience. Several colleagues and friends have cooperated by contributing their knowledge, experience, and support. A sincere thank you is extended to each of these individuals: To Dr. Eldon Nonnamaker, Dr. Marvin Grandstaff, Dr. Howard Hickey, and Dr. Robert Poland for serving as my doctoral committee and for offering encouragement and advice. To Mary Jane Cook, Paul Jastrzembski, and Rebecca Ruis for their assistance in data collection. To Linda Burnes and Penny Papo for their administrative assistance. To Julie Bonkowski, Mike and Carol Ells, Luanne Gogolin, Marilyn Keigley, Mary McCorriston, Wanda Smith, Mary Thompson, Carole Timinskis, and other colleagues and friends for their persistent encouragement and unending support. To my sons, Mark and Matthew, for their understanding and prodding. Above all, I want to acknowledge the support and guidance I received from my husband, Fred, who devoted endless hours to discussing statistics and methodology and who has given direction to my professional growth. iv Finally, I acknowledge the influence of my former professor, mentor, and friend, the late Dr. Lloyd V. Douglas, who introduced me to business education and inspired me to achieve. LIST Chap TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ....................... INTRODUCTION .................... Statement of the Problem ............. Purpose of the Study ............... Research Questions ................ Need for the Study ................ Setting for the Study ............... Definition of Terms ................ Limitations and Delimitations ........... Limitations ................... Delimitations .................. Organization of the Study ...... _ ....... REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............. Collaborative Learning .............. Peer Groups .................... Viewpoints ................... Research .................... Cooperative Learning ............... Viewpoints ................... Research .................... Heterogeneous Groups ............... Grading Practices ................. Summary ...................... Contributions of This Study to the Literature . METHODOLOGY ..................... Population and Sample ............... Research Design .................. Quasi-experimental Design ............ Measures of Attitude and Achievement ....... Posttest .................... Group Work Evaluation .............. vi —l osoxotomm-e-wwm —I ll ACT English ................... English ll2 Grade ................ Instrumentation for the Study ........... Writing Attitude Inventory ........... Group Work Attitude Inventory .......... Writing Achievement Assessment ......... Final Course Grade ............... Evaluation of Group Work ............. Instructional Design ............... General Goals .................. Specific Objectives ............... Instructional Units ............... Grouping .................... Data Analysis ........... : ....... Statistical Processing ............. Criteria for Analyzing Research Questions . . . . Summary ...................... FINDINGS ...................... Validity and Reliability ............. Writing Attitude Inventory ........... Group Work Attitude Inventory .......... Description of the Sample ............. Exploration of Pretreatment Differences ...... Analysis of Research Questions .......... Differences in Attitudes Toward Writing and Group Work .................. Achievement Gain ................ Relationship of Pre-course Ability and Attitude Measures to Achievement ....... Effectiveness of Heterogeneous Cooperative Learning Groups ................ Further Exploration of Data ............ Summary ...................... SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... Summary ...................... Literature ................... Methodology ................... Results ..................... Conclusions .................... Recommendations .................. Summary of Study ................. Reflections .................... T06 T08 T08 T09 TTO TT2 TT6 TT8 Page APPENDICES A. CONSENT FORM .................... 120 B. WRITING ATTITUDE INVENTORY ............. 121 C. GROUP WORK ATTITUDE INVENTORY ............ 124 D. PRE- AND POSTTEST WRITING ASSIGNMENT ........ 125 E. 0A 210 EVALUATION FORM ............... 127 F. COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS OBSERVATION SHEET . . . . 129 G. COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS SELF-EVALUATION 130 CHECKLIST ...................... H. COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS EVALUATION SHEET . . . . 131 I. DA 210 GROUP WORK EVALUATION ............ 133 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................ 134 viii Tabls LIST OF TABLES Table Page 3.l Comparison of Sample With FSU Student Profile . . . . 49 3.2 Validity Coefficients for Writing Attitude Measures: Corrected Item-to-Scale Correlations ........ 55 3.3 Correlation Distribution of Items Within the Six Scales of the Writing Attitude Inventory ...... 56 3.4 Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficients for the ' Six Scales of the Writing Attitude Inventory . . . . 56 3.5 Raters’ Scores on Practice Writing Evaluation . . . . 59 4.l Validity Coefficients for Writing Attitude Measures: Corrected Item-to-Scale Correlations ........ 72 4.2 Correlation Distribution of Items Within the Six Scales of the Writing Attitude Inventory ...... 73 4.3 Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficients for the Six Scales of the Writing Attitude Inventory . . . . 74 4.4 Validity Coefficients for Group Work Attitude Measures: Corrected Item—to-Scale Correlations . . 75 4.5 Correlation Distribution of Items Within the Three Scales of the Group Work Attitude Inventory . . . . 75 4.6 Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficients for the Three Scales of the Group Work Attitude Inventory . 76 4.7 Comparison Between Control and Treatment Groups on Group Composition ................. 77 4.8 Comparison Between Control and Treatment Groups on Pre-course Ability ................. 78 Table Table Page 4.9 Student Enrollment by Schools ............ 78 4.10 Analysis of Pretest Differences Between Groups . . . . 80 4.11 Analysis of the Ability and Attitude Differences Between the Treatment and Control Groups ...... 82 4.12 Differences in Attitudes Toward Writing and Group Work Between Groups ................ 84 4.13 Group Comparisons in Perception of Writing Teacher and Involvement in Group Scales .......... 85 4.14 Comparison of Pre— and Posttest Attitudes Toward Writing and Group Work for the Treatment Group . . . 86 4.15 Comparison of Pre- and Posttest Attitudes Toward Writing and Group Work for the Control Group . . . . 86 4.16 Achievement as Determined by the Posttest Business Writing Assessment ................. 87 4.17 Gains in Achievement From Prewriting to Postwriting . 88 4.18 Prediction of Writing Achievement Using Ability and Attitude Measures ................. 90 4.19 Rank Order of Items Students Used to Evaluate Cooperation With the Group ............. 98 4.20 Correlation Coefficients for Pretest Group Attitude Variables and Measures of Ability for Both Groups . 106 effec neede highe 1987 behav Michi techn facto techn keepi ident futur tion, (Pest COOpe the d "H" CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION A role of higher education is to produce well-educated, effective, and responsible workers. The gap between the skills needed and the skills possessed by the current workforce presents higher education with a challenge (Adult Literacy Task Force, 1988). The Michigan Employability Skills Task Force was convened in 1987 and charged with the task of identifying the skills and behaviors needed by today’s workers. The Task Force emphasized that Michigan’s economic future~ must focus on people, teamwork, and technology. The skills of the men and women in offices and factories and their ability' to work together in using the new technologies will determine how successful these workers are in keeping present jobs and securing future employment. The Task Force identified three skill categories as essential for current and future Michigan workers: (a) academic skills-~including communica- tion, (b) personal management skills, and (c) teamwork skills (Pestillo & Yokich, 1988). This study explored ‘the integrated. effects of 'teamwork and cooperative learning on achievement in business communication and the development of attitudes toward writing and group participation. In major 1988) becau an in Reece stati peopl suffe prese "The proce later Johns solvi incre they busin relat busin in co Statement of the Problem Interpersonal skills are crucial for business workers and are a major component in making a business operate effectively (Brostrom, 1988). Stiegler (1984) stated that people lose their jobs not because of lack of specialized knowledge and skills, but because of an inability to interact effectively with co-workers and managers. Reece (1988) supported the need for human relations skills by stating: "A growing number of jobs today are interdependent; if the people in these jobs cannot work effectively as a team, productivity suffers" (p. 44). Naisbitt (1982) stated that as more technology is present in the workplace, more human interaction will be needed. "The more robots, the more quality circles. The more word processors and computer terminals, the greater the need to network laterally within an organization" (p. 200). Research on cooperative learning experiences conducted by Johnson and Johnson (1983) led them to conclude that "the key to solving our quality of labor force crisis may be in substantially increasing the amount of time students learn cooperatively while they are in school" (p. 159). The structure hierarchies common in business 20 years ago have been replaced by increasingly democratic relationships; interpersonal skills play a more important role in business than ever. It is important that students learn how to work in cooperative environments (Bowman & Branchaw, 1988). hetei connu attit learn used. resea hypot learr instr by tl Inven ing 9 in ac measu Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups in teaching business communication at the postsecondary level. The study focused on the attitudes and achievement of students participating in cooperative learning groups. Quantitative and qualitative measurements were used. Research Questions Quantitative and qualitative measures were used to address four research questions. The research questions are restated as null hypotheses. I. Do students who experience heterogeneous cooperative learning groups differ from those who experience traditional instruction in attitudes toward writing and group work as assessed by the Writing Attitude Inventory and the Group Work Attitude Inventory? Ho 1: There is no difference between the attitudes toward writing and group work of students participating in heterogene- ous cooperative learning group instruction and traditional instruction. 2. Do students who experience heterogeneous cooperative learn- ing groups differ from those who experience traditional instruction in achievement in business writing skill as assessed by a post- measure of business letter writing? Ho 2: There is no difference in business writing achievement of students participating in heterogeneous cooperative learning group instruction and traditional instruction. ing a 112 o assig work) ing s atior quesi find comm the comm John abil USUa (19E 3. Is business writing skill, as measured by a posttest writ- ing assignment, related to pre—course ability (ACT scores, English 112 or equivalent, high school grade point average, pretest writing assignment) and pre-course attitudes (toward writing and group work)? Ho 3: There is no relationship between posttest writing achievement and pre-course ability and pre-course attitudes. 4. Do students who experience heterogeneous cooperative learn- ing groups report, through written comments, favorable final evalu- ations? Qualitative analysis was used to address this research question. Need for the Study The business literature contains an abundance of research findings and authoritative statements relating the ability to communicate to career success (Leonard, 1988). However, research on the effects of cooperative learning groups in teaching business communication at the postsecondary level is limited. Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1988) stated: Despite the overwhelming evidence of the power and importance of" cooperative learning experiences, and the ‘lack of clear evidence as to when competitive and individualistic goal structures can be beneficially used in the classroom, the current research findings are incomplete. (p. 22) Although interpersonal or cooperative skills, such as the ability to work with others, have been identified as important, they usually have not been incorporated into course objectives. Slavin (1983) commented: Cooper an in milita Establishin cognitive 2 students. In 0ft see a must I of no diffei in wh' Successful life situa be made, a team. Mitch communicat skills int activities cooperati eXpel‘ienc anaUlzing, Strat deveTODing human education. 15 Worthy Cooperation is one of the most important human activities. . .People who can organize as a group to accomplish a common end are likely to be successful in business, in sports, in the military, or in virtually any endeavor. (p. 5) Establishing cooperative learning groups as a means for acquiring cognitive and affective skills provides a real-life experience for students. Cohen (1972) stated: In order to change the kinds of human abilities that students see as relevant to classroom success, curricular activities must be closer to the way adults use their minds in the world of work. There must be more stress on problem solving with different acceptable ways to solve problems and different media in which the problem is presented. (p. 148) Successful cooperative learning groups provide students with real? life situations that encourage ideas to be expressed, decisions to be made, and tasks to be performed while working as a member of a team. Mitchell (1988) indicated the importance of integrating written communication skills and interpersonal, listening, and speaking skills into the same business communication course and into single activities or projects. Teaching business communication by means of cooperative learning groups provides students with classroom experiences that assist in developing skills in cooperating, analyzing, evaluating, and writing. Strategies for teaching business communication that incorporate developing cooperative skills as well as writing skills provide an alternative to the traditional lecture method so prevalent in higher education. The effectiveness of an alternate instructional strategy is worthy of investigation. Ferri approximate curriculum. enrolled ir tration, me The cc were incor course is 1 is offered designed t management. communicat' critical a1 and the a (Ferris St. 30 student Prerequisii 112 0ffere< Business C BUSiness. The f( Common has. Setting for the Study Ferris State University, a four-year institution of approximately 11,000 students, emphasizes an occupationally oriented curriculum. The School of Business has approximately 4,500 students enrolled in accounting, computer information systems/office adminis- tration, management, and marketing. The course into which heterogeneous cooperative learning groups were incorporated was Business Communication II (0A 210). The course is part of the core curriculum for the School of Business and is offered each academic term. Business Communication II is designed to develop effective writing skills for business and management. Development is gained through an understanding of communication theory, the role of communications in management, the critical and analytical reasoning for effective written expression, and the application of these principles to business situations (Ferris State University, 1988). Classes usually consist of 27 to 30 students representing the various majors offered in the School. Prerequisites include sophomore standing and completion of English 112 offered through the School of Arts and Science or completion of Business Communication I (DA 110) offered through the School of Business. new The following definitions of terms used in the study provide a common basis for understanding. Abilii academic a scores, Eng and pretest Achie knowledge assignment lela refers to cooperativ: £98!!! directed c' instructim M group" ref mutual goa' to-face ir small-grow "Share" gr; 9M2 t0 describl G”up Work ment: In' Group, Ability. The term “ability" is used to describe the students’ academic ability as measured by American College Testing (ACT) scores, English 112 or equivalent, high school grade point average, and pretest writing assignment. Achievement. The term "achievement" refers to students’ knowledge of business writing as measured by a final written assignment. Collaborative learning. The term "collaborative learning" refers to students working together (a) in peer groups or (b) in cooperative learning groups. Control group. The term "control group" refers to a teacher- directed classroom where the lecture method is the primary method of instruction. Cooperative learning group. The term "cooperative learning group" refers to students working interdependently to accomplish a mutual goal. Basic elements include positive interdependence, face— to-face interaction, individual accountability, interpersonal and small-group skills, and processing. In most situations students "share" grades from assigned projects. Group work attitudes. The term "group work attitudes" is used to describe a set of attitudes toward group work as measured by the Group Work Attitude Inventory. Three scales comprise the instru— ment: Involvement in Group, Value of Group, and Anxiety Toward Group. WEE composed of st teristics. flew to the abilitj ideas, to part as "cooperativ MAM together who h rank or positi feedback from "interdependen new classroom that Primary method ”new refers to inst events TTTVOTVTT Mu describe a se ”filing Attitu Perceptmn of Writing in Soc and MOUVation Heterogeneous. The term "heterogeneous" refers to a group composed of students with varying abilities, attitudes, and charac— teristics. Interpersonal skills. The term "interpersonal skills" refers to the ability to work with others, to listen to someone else’s ideas, to participate in discussions, and so forth; also referred to as "cooperative skills" or "human relation skills." Peer groups. The term "peer groups" refers to students working together who have equal standing with one another and are similar in rank or position. Peer groups usually provide a means for immediate feedback from group members but generally do not use the concept of “interdependence" or "shared" grades on assigned projects. Treatment group. The term "treatment group" refers to the classroom that used heterogeneous cooperative learning groups as the primary method of instruction. Unstructured observation. The term "unstructured observation" refers to instructor or student recordings of significant, specific events involving students cooperating with each other. Writing attitudes. The term "writing attitudes" is used to describe a set of attitudes toward writing as measured by the Writing Attitude Inventory. The instrument comprises six scales: Perception of the Writing Teacher, Anxiety Toward Writing, Value of Writing in Society, Self-concept in Writing, Enjoyment of Writing, and Motivation in Writing. This quas environment th also imposed b; Limitations General 12. students enrol 1988-1989, at findings to ot approached cau w control groups instructors we: may have had s1 Norm Ferris State L not possible. [Wm M and achievemen learning QrOUp foHOWIW six 1 Inventory; P Writing, Value Enjoyment of W Limitations and Delimitations This quasi—experimental study was conducted in an educational environment that imposed several restrictions. Restrictions were also imposed by the design of the research. 11mm Generalizability. The study was limited in generalizability to students enrolled in Business Communication II during winter term, 1988—1989, at Ferris State University. Generalization of the findings to other academic terms or to other academic settings was approached cautiously. Instructor effects. The treatment group and one of three control groups were taught by the same instructor. Two other instructors were similar in rank and experience. Teacher attributes may have had some effect on the results. Nonrandom groups. Because of the nature of class scheduling at Ferris State University, random assignment to course sections was not possible. However, class sections were representative. Delimitations Variable selection. This study focused on student attitudes and achievement after participating in heterogeneous cooperating learning groups. Attitude toward writing was delimited to the following six variables within the construct of the Writing Attitude Inventory: Perception of the Writing Teacher, Anxiety Toward Writing, Value of Writing in Society, Self-concept in Writing, Enjoyment of Writing, and Motivation in Writing. Attitude toward group work was construct of t Group, Value of The inves posttest writir of achievement lent grade, hi assignment. Sample siz postsecondary Ferris State Un Chapter I for the study, describing the the limitation; cOntains a revi grouPS, and co( Secondary lew cOllducted in th Writing. Chapt this Study. ( Chapter v conta mendatjons. group work was delimited to the following three variables within the construct of the Group Work Attitude Inventory: Involvement in Group, Value of Group, and Anxiety Toward Group. The investigation of achievement was delimited to pre- and posttest writing evaluations. Ability measures used as predictors of achievement were delimited to ACT scores, English 112 or equiva— lent grade, high school grade point average, and pretest writing assignment. Sample size. The sample size was delimited to four sections of postsecondary students enrolled in Business Communication II at Ferris State University during winter term, I988-1989. WM Chapter I introduced the study by stating the purpose and need for the study, presenting the research questions to be investigated, describing the setting for the research, defining terms, and stating the limitations and delimitations of the research. Chapter II contains a review of relevant research on peer groups, heterogeneous groups, and cooperative learning groups at the secondary and post- secondary levels. Particular emphasis is given to research conducted in the use of cooperative learning groups in the area of writing. Chapter 111 describes the methodology used for conducting this study. Chapter IV contains a description of the findings. Chapter V contains a summary of the study, conclusions, and recom- mendations. ' t Relevant collaborative ‘ tive learning g cation of groul levels. The elementary sch placed on iden‘ deSign that inc The prime educational r1 W findings were 1' COTIaborat Students work grout’s' IUIEY‘I the 1980s, alt first dEVeTOpm (BPUTfee, 1984) CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Relevant literature for this study included the topics (a) collaborative learning, (b) peer learning groups, and (c) coopera- tive learning groups. The selected literature emphasized the appli— cation of group learning methods at the postsecondary and secondary levels. The more abundant literature on learning groups at the elementary school level was not included. Further emphasis was placed on identifying studies that used a pretest—posttest research design that included achievement and attitudinal variables. The primary contributions were found in business journals, educational research journals, dissertations, and Dissertation Abstracts International. Both philosophical viewpoints and research findings were identified for inclusion. Elm—Wm Collaborative learning is an instructional strategy whereby students work together in peer groups or in cooperative learning groups. Interest in collaborative learning gained momentum during the 19803, although the term was coined and the basic ideas were first developed by British secondary school teachers in the 19505 (Bruffee, 1984). For Americ ing lie . leges duri (p- 637) Although counseling prog Some colleges “ academic pl‘Ole evaluation and teaching“ in wl dents to work t One way 1 classroom is by peer groups em and edit each 1 collaboratively unique feature interdependence resPonsible 1°01 (dehnson et a1. “em The advent severe] reSearc response QIOUps "peer‘based 193 ri—a—H For American college teachers the roots of collaborative learn- ing lie . . . in the nearly desperate response of harried col- leges during the early 19705 to a pressing educational need. (p. 637) Although colleges and universities offered tutoring and counseling programs, many students refused this special assistance. Some colleges implemented peer tutoring programs to alleviate this academic problem. Peer tutoring and similar modes such as peer evaluation and classroom group work provided a form of "indirect teaching" in which the teacher set the problem and organized stu— dents to work together to solve a task (Bruffee, 1984). One way to implement collaborative learning groups in the classroom is by using peer groups. In writing classes, for example, peer groups enable students to work together to define, evaluate, and edit each other’s writing. A second way for students to work collaboratively is by establishing cooperative learning groups. The unique feature of cooperative learning groups is that a positive interdependence needs to be developed whereby each member feels responsible for the learning activities of other group members (Johnson et al., 1988). Bee—Wm Viewpoints The advantages of peer response groups have been stated by several researchers. Bruffee (1984), a leading proponent of writing response groups, stated that peers working together foster a kind of "peer-based learning" that puts power in the hands of the students, a situation the of peer groups The litera cipally respons and freedman (1 groups has spev ences. They st Ideally, p that is 1 difference genuine s guided by solicit fl support of Bruffee (1 writing process time and functi sation as thoug in its external Besides pr tl'Ve learn for conver of status nership" o a communi' teachers v the one m. life, in b New Renshaw (1 edit/“Wish" TTI instruction on r__—_m—‘*"‘ 13 a situation that is absent from most classrooms. The effectiveness of peer groups has also been identified by researchers. The literature on peer editing indicates that feedback is prin— cipally responsible for gains in achievement and attitude. DiPardo and Freedman (1988) commented that the environment for peer response groups has special characteristics that address individual differ- ences. They stated: Ideally, peer talk about writing should occur in an environment that is flexible and attentive to the role of individual differences and that fosters communication about issues of genuine significance to students—-a workplace organized and guided by a teacher, but offering the writer opportunities to solicit feedback from peers as well as from the teacher in support of one’s evolving, individual needs. (p. 145) Bruffee (1984) commented that conversation is important to the writing process and that writing is related to conversation in both time and function. He stated, "We converse; we internalize conver- sation as thought; and then by writing, we re-immerse conversation in its external, social medium" (p. 641). Besides providing a particular kind of conversation, collabora— tive learning also provides a particular kind of social context for conversation, a particular kind of community--a community of status equals: peers. Students learn the "skill and part- nership" of re-externalized conversation, writing, not only in a community that fosters the kind of conversation college teachers value most, but also in a community that approximates the one most students must eventually write for in everyday life, in business, government, and the professions. (p. 642) Research Renshaw (1986) completed a study on the effectiveness of the edit/revision method of instruction and the traditional method of instruction on the achievement and satisfaction of students in business commu that students amount concern‘ business princ toward the imp cantly with the Robinson’: peer tutoring/ traditional le which group a freshman compo college were t mined by numeri awriting samp' difference in showed a gain. was a signific items of the Di wording, flavo: Significant di QrOUps, HOWe coTTCTuded that was to determi: and females ll between the tw however, there 14 business communication at the college level. The findings showed that students in both treatment groups gained at least an equal amount concerning business writing principles, ability to apply the business principles, and student satisfaction. Students’ attitudes toward the importance of business communication increased signifi- cantly with the edit/revision method of instruction. Robinson’s (1987) primary objective was to determine whether peer tutoring/editing was as effective a learning method as the traditional learning method. A second objective was to determine which group achieved more. Seventy average to above-average freshman composition students from a small private liberal arts college were the subjects for this study. Achievement was deter- mined by numerical gain in scores made from pretest to posttest on a writing sample. This study showed that there was no significant difference in gain scores between the two groups; all students showed a gain. The third objective was to determine whether there was a significant difference in gain scores on seven individual items of the Diederich Scale. These items were ideas, organization, wording, flavor, usage, punctuation, and spelling. There was no significant difference between the edit/revision and traditional groups. However, for the individual item "wording," it was concluded that males gained more than females. A fourth objective was to determine the effects of the treatment curriculum on males and females in this study. The study indicated no difference between the two groups as a result of the treatment curriculum; however, there was a significant difference between male and female groups. Males than females’ g House (15 achievement in study included one control g1 rewriting exert Group II used lecture-discus: discussion met] the .05 level, scores were ex overall GPA, al experimental g group, there favored the t difference in and Experiment rewriting lei 8“"1598 wer discussion metl One study ”tenth", and Peer ”View w course in a ( groups. Males’ gain scores on Posttest I were significantly higher than females’ gain scores at the .05 level. House (1982) studied the effect rewriting had on student achievement in a postsecondary business communication course. The study included 114 students divided into two experimental groups and one control group. Experimental Group I used individual letter rewriting exercises and the lecture-discussion method; Experimental Group II used small-group letter rewriting exercises and the lecture-discussion method; the control group used only the lecture- discussion method. Analysis of covariance, with significance set at the .05 level, was used to analyze the data. Adjusted mean posttest scores were examined using students’ English grade point averages, overall GPA, and pretest scores as covariates. When students in the experimental groups were compared with students in the control group, there were significant differences in achievement that favored the two experimental groups. There was no significant difference in achievement between students in Experimental Group I and Experimental Group II. The results indicated that individual rewriting letter exercises and small-group rewriting letter exercises were more effective than the traditional lecture- discussion method in increasing student achievement. One study (Swift, 1987) examined whether writing performance, retention, and attitude improved using the combined techniques of peer review with self-evaluation in teaching a freshman writing course in a community college. The subjects were 176 freshmen divided into 1 experimental gr to revise ess; techniques of p and posttest es informal survey peer review wi better writing significant ef pretest to pos Boss (198 direct teachi revision habit: composition Si students with g guidelines. evaluative at and through tr pr‘3t95t/postte: as measured by Although all 5 views at the e tutoriais With 1n anothe effectiveness brief grammar 16 divided into four experimental and four control sections. The experimental groups used small groups of students working together to revise essays. The control groups were taught without the techniques of peer review or self-evaluation. Data included pretest and posttest essays, retention rate, Writing Attitude Scale, and an informal survey. It was concluded that the combined techniques of peer review with self-evaluation had a modest effect in producing better writing performance. The experimental techniques had a significant effect in improving freshman writing performance from pretest to posttest essay score. Boss (1987) compared the effects of peer group critiques to direct teaching instruction upon students’ writing skills and revision habits in a freshman composition course. A set of analytic composition scales coordinated with assignment sheets provided students with guidance for draft revisions and teachers with grading guidelines. The study focused on the manner of presentation of evaluative criteria: through collaborative learning (peer groups) and through traditional teacher-centered activities. Control group pretest/posttest mean scores showed slightly greater improvement, as measured by a two-tailed t-test with the .05 level of confidence. Although all students’ writing improved, questionnaires and inter- views at the end of the semester revealed students’ preference for tutorials with individual conferences and teacher-corrected papers. In another study (Roberts, 1986) a comparison was made on the effectiveness of peer-editing of business letters accompanied by brief grammar reviews and professor editing of students’ business letters with r students, the l pretest and For was used to me and a "good me In the experin five. These collectively et group, there w business letter showed a signi‘ on posttest bus Peer confe by Loken (1986] made to match ! review) student English GPA s“ The effectivene Posttest Essay: ”Wing. and al scoring. The1 and apprehensih Overan Writin Overall apprehe on the average letters with no grammar reviews. To measure grammar ability of students, the Language Knowledge Test, Form A, was administered as a pretest and Form B as a posttest. A "neutral news" writing exercise was used to measure students’ pre-business letter writing ability, and a "good news" writing exercise was administered as a posttest. In the experimental group, students were divided into groups of five. These students received a brief grammar review daily and collectively edited each other’s business letters. In the control group, there were no grammar reviews and the professor graded all business letters for the students. The results of this experiment showed a significant difference in favor of the experimental group on posttest business letter scores. Peer conferencing and one-to-one conferencing were investigated by Loken (1986) in college freshman writing classes. Attempts were made to match 50 control (teacher review) and 50 experimental (peer review) students by sex, age, career interests, English ACT scores, English GPA scores, composite ACT scores, and composite GPA scores. The effectiveness of the two strategies was determined by pre— and posttest essays, using Myer’s recommendations for preparation and scoring, and also by the Daly-Miller apprehension pre- and posttest scoring. The findings indicated that the pre- and posttest writing and apprehension means were approximately the same for either group. Overall writing score increases were significant at p < .05. Overall apprehension decreases were significant at p < .01. Females on the average had higher writing scores (p < .01) than males, but i males showed a .01) than femal tions required peer review. A study c school examiner may be caused control group I and an experime the peer editi each other’s pa revision worksf essays using a the teacher le Students in thi groups then re Grade. Papers Scale. Repeats covariance, and the ahaiJ/Sis. final draft, bu The revisiOn we the Deer editi] Practiced crit‘ 18 males showed a significantly greater decrease in apprehension (p < .01) than females. In addition, the teacher review of the composi- tions required about 150 more hours of the instructor’s time than peer review. A study conducted by Graner (1986) in a postsecondary prep school examined the hypothesis that increased writing proficiency may be caused by the practice gained in critical evaluation. A control group used peer editing to revise initial drafts of essays, and an experimental group revised drafts in revision workshops. In the peer editing class, students met in small groups to critique each other’s papers and to provide feedback to the writers. In the revision workshop, students independently read and evaluated sample essays using an editorial checklist. After each paper was rated, the teacher led a group discussion on the merits of the papers. Students in the revision workshop received no peer feedback. Both groups then rewrote their essays and submitted them for a final grade. Papers were scored by independent raters using the Diederich Scale. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), analyses of covariance, and the Pearson product-moment correlation were used in the analysis. Both groups significantly improved from initial to final draft, but no significant difference was found between groups. The revision workshop group made approximately 40% more changes than the peer editing group. The findings indicated that students who practiced critical evaluation skills on peers’ work could apply those skills to their own work. The value the research o inquiry was u: writers in sm revised their study: talk emotional climz to the tape or groups represe higher-level i concerns of us writer in using and writing, Benesch ( peer group in to discover whi and how they c cate90ries was and qualitative individuals. i group time was certain obstacl tion and revis Sense that the tory than genui the readers tel 19 The value of talk or conversation for a writer was addressed in the research conducted by David (1986). An ethnographic method of inquiry was used to describe the talk of inexperienced college writers in small-group writing workshops as they composed and revised their writing. Four categories of talk emerged from the study: talk in response to the papers, talk to establish the emotional climate, talk to move the group along, and talk addressed to the tape or listeners of the tape. The students’ use of the groups represented the full range of a writer’s concerns, from higher-level issues of intention and arrangement to lower-level concerns of usage and editing. David described the value for the writer in using talk in the small group to mediate between thinking and writing. Benesch (1986) analyzed the discussions of one three-member peer group in a freshman writing workshop about their early drafts to discover what they talked about, how they talked about writing, and how they collaborated. A code system of content and function categories was developed to describe the talk both quantitatively and qualitatively. Interviews were conducted with the group and the individuals. Findings indicated that although the majority of peer group time was devoted to discussion of the drafts, there were certain obstacles to collaboration, including avoidance of elabora- tion and revision, feelings of competition between writers, and a sense that the writing and peer group discussions were more perfunc- tory than genuine. Findings also indicated that questions posed by the readers tended to encourage elaboration of the writer’s ideas, praise and suggestions for revision tended to limit the degree of collaboration, shared teacher—generated assignments tended to create competition, and the degree of collaboration was highest when the students were engaged in discussion of the responding process. A study to describe changes in students’ writing ability, attitudes toward writing, and degree of writer self-esteem was conducted by Strugala (1984). Two impromptu essays, a writer attitude questionnaire, and a self-esteem survey were administered during pre- and posttests to 52 remedial writing students and 30 freshman composition students at a four-year college. Trained readers scored the essays, which provided assessments of strong, average, and weak pieces of writing. The Writer Attitude Question— naire identified writer behaviors and attitudes. The Thoughts About Myself and School Survey measured primary self-regard, self-esteem relating to school, attitudes toward instruction, and attitudes toward reading and writing. Significant gains in referential writing (p < .03) and nonsignificant gains in expressive writing were found for the remedial writing students. Nonsignificant gains in both referential and expressive writing were found for the fresh- man composition students. Stated implications of this study are: 1. Assessment and evaluation of writing should consist of multiple aspects such as performance, attitudes, and behaviors. 2. Multiple options of response should be provided for stu- dents in writing situations which assess writing performance. 3. Multiple scoring methods should be used. 21 4. Instructors should recognize the apparent positive influence instruction has on writer attitude, behavior, and self-esteem and the connection to improvement in writing performance. 5. Instructors should integrate language experiences with developing the self-esteem of students. 6. Learning environments and writing assignments should be designed to facilitate the development of positive self- concepts in students. A case study conducted in a two-year college in South Carolina (Shannon, 1983) sought to alleviate the problems in traditional approaches when used with nontraditional students. A small-group, personal-growth method was used that combined six components: nongraded daily writing, positive feedback on writing, freedom in paper length and topic, peer-evaluation techniques, instructor- student appointments, and activities to improve students’ self- concept and self-awareness. The model was evaluated using the results of a pre- and post-standardized usage test and comparing the results with those of students in a different course. The project students also provided a self-report of improvement. The results indicated that frequent writing is essential to writing improvement, small groups are essential for theme evaluation and personal growth activities, and multiple modes of instruction are helpful. The use of learning groups in teaching introductory accounting was investigated by Wilson (1983). This study was designed to determine if there were significant differences in achievement, interpersonal relationships, and satisfaction between students who experienced group teaching as compared to the lecture method. The population comprised 91 students in the control (lecture) sections and 94 students in the experimental (group) sections. Performance data consisted of scores on the Level I Financial Accounting-Form A exam. Data on interpersonal relationships and satisfaction were obtained from a questionnaire that was administered on the first and last class period and from a post-course survey. The results disclosed that the performance of students in the experimental sections was consistently higher than that of students in the control classes but that differences were not statistically signifi— cant. The results also indicated that students in experimental classes scored significantly higher on a number of interpersonal relationship satisfaction measures than did lecture students. Baldwin (1986) described the development and implementation of a model for accommodation of preferences for alternative instruc- tional environments. Students in a community college mathematics mini-course were informed of three learning environments: individual, small group, and large group. Environmental preferences were then assessed using take-home student questionnaires. Each student was assigned to his/her preferred learning environment. This investigation revealed several suggestive preference patterns: 1. Females and students with weak academic backgrounds tended to prefer the small-group environment. 2. Students with higher levels of communication apprehension tended to avoid the small-group environment. 3. New college students and students with negative mathematics attitudes tended to avoid the individual environment. 4. Students with higher grades in high school tended to prefer the large-group environment. 23 Emley (1987) designed a study to determine the efficacy of two different instructional types: team-assisted individualization (TAI) and individualized instruction in teaching remedial mathemat- ics at the college level. Both modes of instruction were compared in light of the differing personality types of the students as meas- ured by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and the students’ attitudes toward math as measured by the Fennema-Sherman Attitude Scale. Results indicated that the effect of TAI on arithmetic achievement was marginal when personality types were simultaneously considered but was significant if personality was not factored into the analy4 sis. TAI had no effect on algebra achievement. Course completion rates were significantly higher with TAI. Jones (1982) explored an instructional technique designed to encourage students to teach each other. Data from 288 students in eight experimental "Peer Teaching in Permanent Project Teams" (PT) and eight matched control sections of an introductory zoology laboratory course were analyzed. Results indicated the PT resulted in increased cooperativeness and academic performance but were inconclusive with respect to the effect of PT on the quantity and quality of peer teaching and student satisfaction. Continuing education or postsecondary education for non- traditional students is becoming more and more important on college and university campuses. Two studies investigated the use of learning groups in teaching adult education courses. In a study of 106 adult learners’ achievement on a criterion- referenced test, Saxe (1987) investigated the effects of variations ll in levels of peer interaction (high, moderate, and low) and group versus individual incentive structure on adult learners’ achieve- ment. The treatment was a six-hour course in "How to Read a Bank’s Annual Report" at a major California bank. Volunteer subjects were randomly assigned to one of three treatment groups: high, moderate, or low levels of peer interaction. Half the subjects in each treat- ment group received an incentive based on their group’s performance and half on individual performance. The data were analyzed using ANOVA for main effects, peer interaction and incentive, and interac- tion effects. Results of the various tests supported moderate levels of peer interaction as the most powerful and educationally significant treatment in this study of adult learners. High and low levels of peer interaction and type of incentive structure did not significantly affect achievement. One of the conclusions given was that adult learners need some peer interaction to increase achieve- ment. Another study concerning adult college students’ preferences for teaching styles was conducted by Daughenbaugh (1986). For the purpose of this study, two populations of postsecondary students were defined as traditional age (18 to 22 years of age) and adult learners (25 years of age and older). The measure used in this study was Learning Styles Inventory: A Measure of Student Prefer- ence for Instructional Techniques, which includes nine instructional strategies: projects, drill and recitation, peer teaching, discus- sion, teaching games, independent study, programmed instruction, 25 lecture, and simulation. The findings indicated that pre-adults favored peer teaching and teaching games; adults preferred independ- ent study and discussion. Pre-adults disfavored drill and recita— tion, simulation, and independent study. Adults disfavored drill and recitation, simulation, and teaching games. Four studies conducted in secondary schools were reviewed to assess the effectiveness of peer learning in various disciplines. The positive effects of peer interaction were illustrated in a study by Simpson-Courts (1986). The researcher attempted to document the process of acquiring metacognitive reading skills through the use of peer interaction discussion groups in a high school reading class- room. Six students were enrolled in a freshman developmental reading class. Students were taught a variety of topics relating to meta—comprehension and then given an assignment to be completed individually on the material presented. Students then discussed and synthesized their individual responses in a peer interaction group, producing one "product" that was to reflect consensus and/or the equal contribution of all group members. A variety of data were collected using an instrument to measure attitude toward reading, a standardized reading test, metacognitive interviews of student and expert readers, time—on-task audiotaped data, attitudes toward working in groups, use of metacognitive strategies from audiotaped sequences, and an analysis of peer interaction products. Positive effects of working in peer interaction groups were indicated in all data analyses with the exception of peer interaction products (i.e., student worksheets completed in groups). it. 26 Peer response groups in a tenth-grade writing class were inves— tigated to examine the social interactions exhibited and the extent and nature of the revision activity (McManus, 1987). The subjects were 32 students in a class of average—to-high achievers and a representative case study group of six from the same class. Social interactions were studied through qualitative research methods. Data were collected from participant observation notes, audio and video tapes, student journals, a teacher’s log, notes from peer group sessions, questionnaires and interviews, and student writing and revision samples. The peer response groups exhibited behaviors of trust, support, and helping; these behaviors carried over into the other activities of the classroom. The students in the study used the suggestions for revisions made by their peers in the group session 89.4% of the time. A different finding resulted from Earls’s (1983) research, which compared peer evaluation and teacher evaluation of first drafts of compositions written by high school sophomores. Eighty- one students participated in the study. Students in two classes evaluated each other’s first drafts; a teacher evaluated the first drafts of students in the other classes. Instruction was similar in all classes. Pretest/posttest compositions on which students had received no evaluation were collected. During the seventh week of the study, compositions that had received first-draft evaluation were collected. Students also completed a STEP 2A Test of Writing Mechanics for a pretest/posttest. In this study, teacher evaluation l l. 27 of first drafts proved to be a superior method for improving students’ writing ability. The effects of peer tutoring on mathematics achievement and attitude of ninth-grade students were researched by Novotni (1986). The methodology used for the study was the pretest-posttest experi- mental design. The t-test for unmatched groups was used to analyze the differences in achievement and attitude between tutored and non- tutored students. The Pearson product—moment correlation coeffi- cient was used to determine whether a relationship existed between achievement and attitude of the students who were tutored. The statistical analysis revealed that there was a difference in the mean improvement of the peer-tutored students versus the non-peer— tutored students in mathematics achievement overall, but the mean improvement was insignificant. There was a positive mean improve- ment in both tutored groups; however, there was a significant difference in the mean improvement of the peer-tutored students versus the non-peer—tutored students in attitude toward mathematics overall. In addition, there was a nonsignificant positive correla— tion between mathematics achievement and attitude toward mathemat- ics. Cooperative Learning Viewpoints The unique feature of cooperative learning groups is the devel- opment of positive interdependence among members of the group. Cooperative learning is not a new idea. In the 19405 Morton u 28 Deutsch, building upon the work of Kurt Lewin, proposed a theory of cooperative and competitive situations that has served as the foun- dation for research on cooperative learning (Johnson et al, 1988). The work of researchers such as Johnson and Johnson, has been built around the Deutsch model. Cooperative learning groups are different from peer groups or other group-process techniques. Johnson et al. (1988) identified five elements that must be present if a cooperative learning group is to be successful: 1. positive interdependence face-to-face interaction individual accountability interpersonal and small-group skills 01450)“) processing In cooperative learning groups, students work together to solve problems, make decisions, and complete tasks. Through this process, students develop cooperative and interpersonal skills. Numerous ways in which peer relationships contribute to social development, cognitive development, and socialization were cited by Johnson et al. (1988). Some of these ways include: 1. In their interactions with peers, children and adolescents directly learn attitudes, values, skills, and information unobtainable from adults. 2. Interaction with peers provides support, opportunities, and models for prosocial behavior. 3. Peers provide models of, expectations of, directions for, and reinforcements of learning to control impulses. h 29 4. Children and adolescents learn to view situations and problems from perspectives other than their own through their interaction with peers. 5. Relationships with other children and adolescents are powerful influences on the development of the values and the social sensitivity required for autonomy. 6. Children need close and intimate relationships with peers with whom they can share their thoughts and feelings, aspirations and hopes, dreams and fantasies, and joys and pains. 7. It is through peer relationships that a frame of reference for perceiving oneself is developed. 8. Coalitions formed during childhood and adolescence provide help and assistance throughout adulthood. 9. The absence of any friendships during childhood and adoles- cence seems to increase the risk of mental disorder. 10. In both educational and work settings, peers have a strong influence on productivity. 11. Students’ educational aspirations may be more influenced by peers than by any other social influence. Cooperative learning groups afford the opportunity for students of all ages to develop interpersonal skills: In order for peer relationships to be constructive influences, they must promote feelings of belonging, acceptance, support, and caring, rather than feelings of hostility and rejection. (Johnson et al., 1988, p. 3:8) Teachers must control the group dynamics affecting student-student interaction (Johnson et al., 1988). Perceptions of being accepted by peers affect several aspects of classroom life: 1. Peer acceptance is positively correlated with willingness to engage in social interaction. 2. Peer acceptance is positively correlated with the extent to which students provide positive social rewards for peers. 30 3. Isolation in the classroom is associated with high anxiety, low self-esteem, poor interpersonal skills, emotional han- dicaps, and psychological pathology. 4. Rejection by peers is related to disruptive classroom behavior, hostile behavior and negative affect, and negative attitudes toward other students and school. 5. Acceptance by peers is related to use of abilities in achievement situations. Research Johnson et al. (1988) cited ten studies that have been conducted on cooperative learning primarily at the K-12 levels. They stated that: Working together to maximize one’s own learning and the learn— ing of the other group members can have profound effects on students. A great deal of research has been conducted on the relationship among cooperative, competitive, and individualis- tic efforts and instructional outcomes. (p. 3:2) Several meta-analyses of cooperative learning studies have been conducted. Johnson et al. (1988) presented their findings from a meta—analysis of 122 studies on cooperative learning conducted between 1924 and 1981. Results indicated that cooperative learning experiences tend to promote higher achievement than do competitive and individualistic learning experiences. Furthermore, "these results hold for all age levels, for all subject areas, and for tasks involving concept attainment, verbal problem solving, reten- tion and memory, motor performance, and guessing-judging-predicting" (p. 3:13). When comparing cooperative learning with competitive and individualistic learning, Johnson et al. (1988) cited several find- ings: ll. 31 1. Cooperative learning experiences promote more positive attitudes toward both the subject area and the instruc— tional experience, as well as more continuing motivation to learn more about the subject area being studied. 2. Students working together in cooperative learning groups master collaborative competencies at a higher level than students studying competitively or individualistically. 3. Cooperativeness is positively related to psychological health; i.e., emotional maturity, well-adjusted social relations, strong personal identity, and basic trust in and optimism about people. 4. Cooperative learning experiences tend to promote greater cognitive and affective perspective taking than do competi- tive or individualistic learning experiences. 5. Cooperative learning experiences tend to promote more dif- ferentiated, dynamic, and realistic views of other students and therefore fewer stereotypes than other learning experi— ences. 6. Cooperative learning experiences promote higher levels of self—esteem. 7. Cooperative learning experiences tend to promote expecta- tions toward more rewarding and enjoyable future interac- tion among students. 8. Cooperative learning experiences also affect relationships with adults. For example, students like the teacher better and perceive the teacher as being more supportive and accepting academically and personally. In their book, Cooperation in the Classroom, Johnson et al. (1988) listed learning outcomes promoted by cooperative learning as identified by five researchers: 1. Higher achievement and increased retention. 2. Greater use of higher-level reasoning strategies and increased critical-reasoning competencies. 3. Greater ability to view situations from others’ perspec— tives. 4. Higher achievement and greater intrinsic motivation. h 32 5. More positive, accepting, and supportive relationships with peers regardless of ethnic, sex, ability, or social class differences or handicapping conditions. 6. More positive attitudes toward subject areas, learning, and schools. 7. More positive attitudes toward teachers, principals, and other school personnel. 8. Higher self-esteem based on basic self-acceptance. 9. Greater social support. 10. More positive psychological adjustment and health. 11. Less disruptive and more on-task behavior. 12. Greater collaborative skills and attitudes necessary for working effectively with others. At the University of California, Webb (1982) reviewed studies that focused on the role of the student’s experience in small-group interaction in learning. Research bearing on three aspects of small group learning yielded these findings: 1. The research relating interaction in groups and achievement generally shows that giving help and receiving help are positively related to achievement, and off-task and passive behavior are negatively related to achievement. 2. The research suggests that motivation, anxiety, and satis- faction may be related to achievement in small groups; however, the link between interaction in the group and these socioemotional variables was not investigated. on The research suggests that students experiencing difficulty while learning might be especially likely to benefit from working with other students. Although most research on cooperative learning groups has been aimed at elementary through secondary education, research has appli- cability to the instructional outcomes of higher education. A 33 limited number of research studies were found on the use of coopera— tive learning groups in teaching postsecondary subjects. Adams (1986) investigated the effect of joint authorship on the writing of 44 college students at two colleges in Kentucky. In the treatment group, pairs of students worked together on three writing tasks; different student pairs were assigned for each assignment. The traditional method of instruction was used in the other group. Pre— and posttest measurements were used. Although positive trends were evident, no significant differences were observed in achieve— ment on posttest scores between the groups. At the end of the course, participants completed a questionnaire asking for an evalu— ation of the joint authorship method of learning and the traditional method of instruction. Students indicated that they favored the joint authorship method as compared to the traditional method of instruction. In a study entitled "The Effects of Cooperative Peer Review on College Students Enrolled in Required Advanced Technical Writing Courses" (Jordan, 1984), the relationship of peer review to writing performance, revision operations, and attitude toward rewriting was investigated. One hundred twenty-eight students taught by five experienced teachers in ten sections of a technical writing course were in randomly assigned groups. The experimental group partici- pated in activities that stressed peer review of drafts and coopera— tive behaviors, and focused on revision throughout composing. Guidelines for cooperative groups and behaviors were discussed and incorporated into the reviews. The control group performed lit alternate activities. Pretest and posttest researched essays were collected and scored by outside raters. Further analyses of these essays included a frequency count of revision operations on drafts and revisions, and the scoring of the posttest attitude survey on rewriting. Statistical analyses included the analysis of covariance and the t~test. Although cooperative peer review did not show a significant improvement in writing skills, it did show an increase in the total number of revision operations performed, an increase in the operation of deletion, and an improvement in attitudes toward revision. Carpenter (1987) researched the effects of competitive and cooperative learning on student achievement and attitudes in college fencing classes. Subjects were 80 college students randomly assigned to treatment groups structured either competitively or cooperatively. Students’ achievement skills were measured for general fencing ability, foil accuracy, and reaction time. Attitudes toward the instructor, peers, competition, and cooperation were assessed. Analysis of the data showed no significant differ- ence between performance scores for students in either treatment group. Analysis of the data for attitudes toward the instructor showed no significant difference between treatment groups. Results did show that students in the cooperative group were more positive in their attitudes toward cooperation, and students in the competi- tive group were more positive in their attitudes toward competition. lit 35 Fifty-six female college students enrolled in six different psychology/human development courses worked in cooperative groups in completing a classroom assignment (Mathewson, 1986). Group members indicated their attitudes toward the group as a whole and toward each member. Results indicated that individuals who perceived their groups as successful expressed more favorable attitudes toward their group as a whole. Results indicated that, in rating individual members, attitudes were more favorable toward individuals who were high contributors; low contributors were rated unfavorably. Some research on the use of cooperative learning groups has indicated that the major benefits to students are improved attitudes and self-concept, not achievement. Chongapiratanakul (1986) examined how different instructional strategies facilitated student learning of specific educational objectives in a collegiate course on the operation of the human heart and the terminology used to describe it. The instructional strategies compared were independent instruction and two variations of quality circles. Students in the control group completed the instructional booklet independently. The instructional booklet was divided into four separate parts to be used in the quality circle formats. Students in the two experimen— tal groups were divided into subgroups in which individuals studied the content independently and shared information through a coopera- tive quality circle technique called the Jigsaw Model. Experimental Group I was led by a facilitator trained in the processes of cooperative quality circle techniques. Experimental Group II was guided by a facilitator trained in both quality circle processes and Hi 36 the content of the instructional material. Each subject was given a retention test immediately after the instruction. The same test was given to every subject four: weeks later to obtain a measure of delayed retention. The results indicated that there was no signifi- cant difference among the treatment groups on both the immediate and delayed tests. In addition, the results indicated that no differ- ence was attributed to the facilitator’s training. The purpose of research by Lauderbach (1986) was to determine the effects of cooperative and individual learning activities on a student’s ability to visualize multiview orthographic projections as measured by an individual performance posttest. The subjects in this study were 69 full— and part-time undergraduate industrial art education majors and nonmajors enrolled in three sections of engi— neering graphics classes. Before the research, students were admin— istered a visualization test to determine their spatial ability. 0n the basis of this score, students were identified as high or low visualizers and randomly assigned to a cooperative or an individual learning activity group. Following each multiview projection lecture, students completed daily problem sheets in their assigned learning groups. Students in the cooperative learning groups were encouraged to work together by using a reward structure. An indi- vidual multiview orthographic projection visualization posttest measured the visualization ability of students in both learning groups. The results indicated no significant difference in posttest scores of these students, nor was there a difference between high hi 37 and low visualizers in the cooperative and individual learning groups. Cooperative learning groups have also been incorporated into postsecondary Spanish classes. Hartl (1985) conducted research with two experimental classes in which students worked together on assignments and with two control groups in which students worked individually on all tasks. All students were tested on measures of achievement and attitude. Measures that affect foreign language learning were used as covariates: previous experience in Spanish, foreign language aptitude, prior achievement in Spanish, initial attitude, and scholastic aptitude. Analyses of variance and covari- ance revealed significant differences in achievement on subsections of the first two course examinations in favor of the control group; however, on the final examination, the experimental group was favored significantly. The experimental group demonstrated a significantly more positive attitude than did the control group, due primarily to a significant effect of the interaction between method of classroom structure and teacher. Smith (1985) investigated the effects of cooperative and individualistic goal structures on achievement, affective outcomes, and group process skills in 61 associate degree nursing students studying mental health nursing. The independent variable was the goal structure--cooperative or individualistic. The dependent variables were (a) achievement scores on quizzes and examinations; (b) attitudes toward modes of learning; (c) attitudes towards peers, teachers, resource interdependence, and academic self-esteem; (d) 38 attitudes toward working in groups and caring for mental health patients; and (e) amount of verbal interaction related to group task or maintenance as monitored by observers. Students were randomly assigned to four discussion groups. Two groups worked in coopera- tive small groups of three to four, another group worked in small groups of three to four but under an individualistic goal structure, and the fourth group worked individualistically under the direction of" the teacher. The results revealed no significant difference between treatment groups in achievement, attitudes, or verbal inter- action. Students who worked in small groups, whether cooperatively or individualistically, talked five times as often as students in the teacher-led individualistic group. Lang (1983) compared the use of a cooperative learning tech- nique, Teams-Games-Tournament (TGT), and the conventional lecture- discussion technique on the academic achievement and attitudes toward economics among college students. In addition, this researcher sought to determine the distributional or interaction effects of TGT on achievement and attitude among students in differ- ent ability levels. Lang used the posttest—only control group design. Sixty students were randomly assigned to the control (lecture-discussion) group or to the experimental (TGT) group. Achievement was measured using a 50-item modified version of the Test of Understanding College Economics. Attitude was measured by a Survey of Attitude Toward Economics. Findings indicated that TGT had no statistically significant effect on academic achievement of “I 39 the experimental group or among students in different ability groups. TGT had no statistically significant effects on attitude either. An interesting nonstatistical comparison of ability group means indicated, however, that the TGT-low group had a mean attitude score 13.93 points higher than the control-low group. A study entitled "Cooperative Versus Competitive Discussion Methods in Teaching Introductory Psychology“ was conducted by Haines and McKeachie (1967) at the University of Michigan. Cooperative and competitive techniques of teaching discussion sections of general psychology were compared with respect to their effects on student anxiety, student achievement, and student satisfaction. Five meas— ures were gathered and used to assure comparability of groups: individual student American Council for Education scores, class level, area of concentration, age, and sex. Students in the experi- mental sections participated in class discussions conducted in a competitive manner for two weeks. The competitive condition resulted in higher tension, poorer achievement, and less satisfac- tion than the cooperative condition. The researchers concluded that "the nature of the goal interdependency structured in the college classroom has a powerful effect upon student behavior" (p. 390). W The composition of the cooperative learning or peer group is important. Noland (1986) investigated the effects of ability groups by conducting a meta-analysis of research findings based on 50 studies reported between 1967 and 1983. The relationships among t 40 various experimental variables including grade level, sex, race/ ethnicity, ability level of students, the subject matter being taught, the length of time students were grouped, and the effects of ability grouping were investigated. The major findings were that students who were ability grouped had the same cognitive outcome scores as students who were not ability grouped and had lower affective outcome scores than students who were not ability grouped. Researchers who favored ability grouping found that ability grouping increased achievement, and researchers who opposed ability grouping found the opposite. However, both groups of researchers found that ability grouping had adverse effects on students’ self-concept. The findings of this study indicate that the practice of ability group- ing does not increase student achievement and does damage students’ self-concept. Johnson et al. (1988) undertook another meta-analysis of 98 studies conducted between 1944 and 1982 that showed the relative impact of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning experiences on interpersonal attraction among homogeneous and heterogeneous samples of students. The meta-analysis yielded 251 findings. The results supported the belief that cooperative learn— ing experiences promote greater interpersonal attraction among homo- geneous students, students from different ethnic groups, and handicapped and nonhandicapped students (p. 3:15). Davis (1985) conducted research to determine what effect the nature of group complexity had on performance outcomes as task levels increased in difficulty. The researcher sought to determine it the effect that complexity of task and homogeneity of ability had on problem-solving outcomes that were performed in group work units. Subjects in this study were designated into groups of high, mixed, and low ability. Problem-solving tasks that varied on three levels of difficulty were administered to each of the three groups. The researcher found that levels of ability and functioning in group work units were critical factors in determining performance outcomes on problem-solving tasks. The sex of the subjects made no differ- ence. Groups of students functioned more effectively than the sum of their individual responses. The usefulness of the small group was substantiated in this research. According to Clinton (1984), structuring group activities is an effective technique in dealing with negative attitudes toward racial and ethnic groups. This study was conducted with 46 subjects enrolled in two sections of sociology at a postsecondary institu- tion. The experimental class received instruction through the lecture-discussion method combined with structured group experi- ences. The control class received instruction through the tradi— tional lecture-discussion method. The same instructor taught both sections. Data were obtained from pretest and posttest scores on the Prejudice and Rationality Scale, the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, Form E, and a knowledge test of course content, as well as ratings on a course comments questionnaire. The following conclusions were drawn: 42 1. The structured group activities approach is an effective technique in dealing with irrational negative attitudes toward racial and ethnic groups. 2. The structured group activities approach is an effective technique in reducing levels of dogmatism. 3. Both the structured group activities and lecture-discussion methods are effective means of increasing knowledge of course content. 4. The traditional lecture-discussion method is perceived by many students as an effective teaching approach. Contrary to other research findings, Harpster (1985) discovered no significant differences between small/heterogeneous and large/ homogeneous groups. The subjects in this study were 57 students divided into nine residence hall leadership groups. The groups met at least twice a month for four months. A trained observer was assigned to attend each group’s meetings. Data were generated by group members’ monthly evaluation forms and observer ratings from eight consecutive meetings. Groups with five or fewer members were considered the small groups; those with six or more were considered the large groups. Heterogeneity was based on sex, race, and leader- ship experience. No significant differences were found between the two group structures. W Cooperative learning is more than merely working together in groups; an important element in cooperative learning is that stu- dents who work together share in the success of their groups. The emphasis on mutual responsibility for achievement sets up the cooperative relationship (Johnson et al., 1988). Therefore, the iii 43 method of reward (or grade) distribution and acceptance of the method are important. Two studies (Fraser, Beaman, Diener, & Kelem, 1977) assessed the effects of a peer-monitoring procedure on student performance in introductory social psychology courses. In the first study, students were assigned a learning partner and informed that their final grade would be determined by the average of their individual performances. A class with traditional grading served as the control group. In the second study, grade averaging was employed for experimental peer-monitoring groups of two, three, or four subjects. Both studies indicated the superiority of the peer— monitoring method over the typical individual performance. Three studies reported in the Journal of Educational Psychology (Beaman, Diener, Fraser, Scott, & Endresen, 1977) examined the effects of variation of peer-monitoring procedures on academic performance of postsecondary students. In the first study, the use of peer monitoring proved to be effective. Partners reported the amount of time spent studying together. If they did not study together, students could report "0" time. Students who studied together for a moderate amount of time showed superior achievement. The average time spent working with partners for these successful subjects was only 67.2 minutes per week, which increased grade averages about 7.1%. The second study was designed similarly to the first study with the exception that partners who did not study together received a lower grade. One unexpected finding was that the experimental 44 subjects spent 1.76 more hours per week studying than did the control subjects. Because several students indicated that they had falsified their reported study times, the data may be inflated. However, the design to penalize students who did not study together is worth noting. The third study planned to yield a less conservative test of improved performance and to provide generalization to a population of students taking another course. Here students were invited to select a study partner and to accept for a grade the average of the two individual performances. 0f the 108 class members, 14 volun- teered for peer monitoring. Each subject signed a brief contract stating that he/she understood the terms of the agreement and would not drop the course after the second week. The higher performance by peer-monitoring subjects was of marginal statistical significance (p < .08). Differences in study time between the two groups were not significant. The volunteers in this study spent slightly more time studying (averaging 96 minutes per week) than did the subjects in the previous studies. These three studies suggest that peer- monitoring procedures produce consistently positive effects. Summary The literature review focused on the use of peer groups and cooperative learning groups in secondary and postsecondary educa- tion. Group composition and grading methods were also reviewed. Thirty-two research studies on peer groups and cooperative learning groups at postsecondary and secondary levels were ii 45 summarized. Of” this number, 22 studies investigated peer group methods, and ten studies concerned cooperative learning groups. One meta-analysis on cooperative learning groups was reviewed, which represented 122 studies. In the research reviewed on peer groups, 18 studies were conducted at postsecondary institutions, and four studies were conducted in secondary schools. In the research reviewed on cooperative learning groups, all ten studies were conducted at the postsecondary level. Sixteen studies investigated the use of peer or cooperative groups in the teaching of writing skills. No studies could be found that investigated the topic of this study, the effec— tiveness of structured heterogeneous cooperative learning groups in the teaching of business communication at the postsecondary level. A pretest-posttest design was used in 17 of the studies reviewed. Field research methods of interviewing and structured and unstructured observations were incorporated into two studies. Three studies used a combination of English grades, overall GPA, sex, class level, and/or test scores to determine the effectiveness of peer or cooperative learning groups. Raters were used to evaluate students’ papers in three of the studies on writing achievement at the postsecondary level. Of the 22 studies investigating gains in achievement, five found that gain to be significant at the .05 level. Thirteen studies specifically investigated changes in attitude between students experiencing peer or cooperative learning groups as compared to 5 Of this numt attitude; the cant level. Eight st importance of found gains i groups, but Obstacles to Two met which represe grouping indi ences in achi and traditio students’ an tive learnin. students of g d0“ "0t inc self~concept, 91‘0Uping, F tices_ LC The Prin We is derii learning grou 46 compared to students experiencing the traditional teaching approach. Of this number, three studies indicated a significant gain in attitude; the other studies indicated a gain, but not at a signifi- cant level. Eight studies assessed interpersonal skill development or the importance of conversation in group process. Each of these studies found gains in student participation in peer or cooperative learning groups, but only one found a significant gain at the .05 level. Obstacles to peer groups were identified in two studies. Two meta—analyses on heterogeneous grouping were reviewed, which represented 148 studies. The meta-analyses on heterogeneous grouping indicated that although there can be significant differ- ences in achievement between students in cooperative learning groups and traditional classrooms, the greatest improvement occurs in students’ attitudes and interpersonal skills. In addition, coopera- tive learning groups can be effective for all subjects and for students of all ages and backgrounds. Homogeneous ability grouping does not increase student achievement and does damage students’ self-concept. Two other studies supported the use of heterogeneous grouping. Five studies were included on group-work grading prac— tices. Contributions of This Study to the Literature The primary contribution of this study to the research litera- ture is derived from the focus on the heterogeneous make-up of the learning groups in the instructional treatment at the postsecondary level. Other tion have not — ' ' ' 19"” uh): fi—A Ii ':__ '. .. -_. __ . _ _._ __ 47 level. Other studies of instruction affecting business communica- tion have not used this instructional treatment. Researci effectiveness teaching of E The populatio measures of a evaluation of are described The pope Business Comn Winter term, students who Hication 11. bully and to sections met 3““ Stud sch°°is Withi were majors 1. SChOOi of AT“ CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY Research procedures were established to evaluate the effectiveness of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups in the teaching of Business Communication 11 at Ferris State University. The population and sample used in the study, the research design, measures of attitude and achievement, instrumentation for the study, evaluation of group work, instructional design, and data analysis are described in this chapter. Population and Sample The population of the study was all students who enrolled in Business Communication 11 taught at Ferris State University during winter term, 1988-1989. The sample of the study comprised 119 students who were enrolled in four class sections of Business Commu- nication II. Sections were selected according to instructor availa- bility and to provide a cross-section of time of day. The selected sections met four days a week at 8 a.m., 10 a.m., 11 a.m., and 3 p.m. Students were sophomores, juniors, and seniors from five schools within the university. Ninety-six (80.7%) of the students were majors in the School of Business; 14 (11.8%) were majors in the School of Arts and Science; 5 (4.2%) were majors in the School of 48 Education; 2 i (1.7%) were ma Ninety-ft programs; 25 ( sample, 42% we on the 1988 f in this sampl were represen‘ Table 3.1.--C \ A I ~ English Mathematics Social studie Natural SCier Composite Se \ Female Male \ The bas "955 of hete Business Com 49 Education; 2 (1.7%) were majors in the School of Technology; and 2 (1.7%) were majors in the School of Pharmacy. Ninety-four (79%) of the students were enrolled in four-year programs; 25 (21%) were enrolled in two-year programs. Of the total sample, 42% were female and 58% were male. Table 3.1 compares data on the 1988 freshman FSU student body (N = 2,431) and the students in this sample who had ACT data on file (N = 103). These students were representative of the Ferris State University student body. Table 3.1.--Comparison of sample with FSU student profile. FSU Sample N = 2,431 N = 103 Ag_ Ave. 5.0. Ave. 5.0. English 15.6 4.8 15.8 5.1 Mathematics 14.3 6.8 14.7 6.9 Social studies 14.5 6.2 14.5 6.7 Natural science 19.5 5.5 18.9 6.3 Composite 16.1 4.7 16.1 5.2 u Female 41% 42% Male 59% 58% Research Design The basic design was a quasi—experimental study using both quantitative and qualitative measurements to assess the effective- ness of heterogeneous cooperative learning grOUps in the teaching of Business Communication 11 at the postsecondary level. Quad;eaeeriue The basic pretesting a traditional I group. The groups was th‘ treatments; h actual groups IV. Campbell well worth us One of t research both giv group an sampling assembh availabi dispense Pretest used to stu learning gro Postsecondary invoTVed in administered The pm eqUivaTent c Quasi-experimental Design The basic design was a nonequivalent control group design with pretesting and posttesting. The three sections using the traditional lecture-discussion strategy represented the control group. The section using the heterogeneous cooperative learning groups was the treatment grOUp. There was no random assignment to treatments; however, representativeness of characteristics in the actual groups was expected, and the comparisons are found in Chapter IV. Campbell and Stanley (1963) acknowledged that this design is well worth using where true experiments are impossible: One of the most widespread experimental designs in educational research involves an experimental group and a control group both given a pretest and a posttest, but in which the control group and the experimental group do not have pre-experimental sampling equivalence. Rather the groups constitute naturally assembled collectives such as classrooms, as similar as availability permits but yet not so similar that one can dispense with the pretest. (p. 47) Measures of Attitude and Achievement Pretest and posttest measures of attitude and achievement were used to study the effectiveness of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups in the teaching of business communication at the postsecondary level. A consent form was distributed to all students involved in this study and collected before the survey was administered. Appendix A contains a copy of this consent form. Pretest The pretest ability measures (ACT scores, English 112 or equivalent grade, high school grade point average) were obtained from student ‘ tered the fir included the 1 Inventory, whi Posttest The post administered 1 were the Wrii Inventory, al: Grou Work Ev. Students assess how th descriptive a Mm 0min ““1999 admis University ti advising and is one of fou included in Natural Scier minute test “Mentions 51 from student files, and a pretest writing assignment was adminis- tered the first week of' class. The pretest attitude measures included the Writing Attitude Inventory and the Group Work Attitude Inventory, which were administered the first week of class. Posttest The posttest ability measure was a final writing assignment administered the last week of class. The posttest attitude measures were the Writing Attitude Inventory and the Group Work Attitude Inventory, also administered the last week of the class. Group Work Evaluation Students responded to four evaluation instruments designed to assess how the groups were functioning. This information provided a descriptive account of the group work experience. ACT English Description. The ACT assessment battery is frequently used for college admission and course placement decisions. At Ferris State University the test is required of all new students for academic advising and course placement decisions. The ACT English Usage Test is one of four tests comprising the ACT assessment. The other tests included in the assessment are Mathematics, Social Studies, and Natural Sciences. The ACT English Usage Test is a 75—item, 40- minute test that measures students’ understanding and use of the conventions of standard written English in punctuation, grammar, sentence structure, diction and style, and logic and organization. The test does I stresses the a that will be a range from 1 tr correlation es with a range f for grammar wi to .93 for in ranged from .8 .72 to .85. Assessment Pro mm 0mm 1a"tillage and < writing, and Grades are is: co“iPietion o eStimates of . Two inst The test does not measure the rote recall of rules of grammar, but stresses the analysis of the kind of effective expository writing that will be encountered in many postsecondary curricula. Scores range from 1 to 33. Validity. For the ACT English Usage Test, the average correlation estimate between content area universe scores was .90, with a range from .86 for punctuation with diction and style to .93 for grammar with logic and organization (ACT, 1988). Reliability. Internal consistency procedures ranged from .84 to .93 for individual test scores; generalizability theory models ranged from .81 to .90. Coefficients for the four tests ranged from .72 to .85. Additional validity data are available in the ACT Assessment Program Technical Manual (1988). English 112 Grade Description. English 112 is the second of a three-part language and composition sequence that covers expository, persuasive writing, and stylistics. Critical thinking skills are emphasized. Grades are issued on a 12-point scale. yaljdity and reliability. The grades received upon the completion of course requirements are routinely accepted as estimates of college achievement. Instrumentation for the Study Two instruments were developed to assess students’ attitudes toward writing and group work. Desstietis modification 01 attitudes towai eleventh grade were affirmed l mathematics in shells (Halady that assessed The follc the rewritten was maintained Original After it they were Su DePartment 1 Untversity. cPherence, ( “0dified, anc "33 Prepared. 53 Writing Attitude Inventory Description. The Writing Attitude Inventory (Appendix B) was a modification of an instrument developed by Sandman (1973) to assess attitudes toward mathematics in students from the eighth through the eleventh grades. The reliability and validity of the instrument were affirmed by Swartz (1982) in its use to assess attitudes toward mathematics in a college population. Individual items were used as shells (Haladyna, Shindoll, & Law, 1987) to be rewritten as items that assessed attitudes toward writing. The following items are examples from both the original and the rewritten instruments to illustrate the parallel structure that was maintained between the instruments: Original instrument 1. Mathematics is something which I enjoy very much. 2. My mathematics teacher makes mathematics interesting. 3. No matter how hard I try, I cannot understand mathematics. 4. It doesn’t disturb me to work mathematics problems. Rewritten instrument--writing 1. Writing is something which I enjoy very much. 2. My writing teacher makes writing interesting. 3. No matter how hard I try, I cannot learn to write well. 4. It doesn’t disturb me to do writing assignments. After items were rewritten to assess attitudes toward writing, they were submitted to a group of five faculty in the English Department in the School of Arts and Science at Ferris State University. These faculty reviewed the items for clarity, coherence, completeness, and correctness. Several items were modified, and a final draft of the writing portion of the inventory was prepared. I. The Writir comprised the 5 Students 1 system (strongl were scored 4, negatively worv responses was items for each attitudinal dil in many attitu« The scale Perce ing teach . Anxie situa . Value usefu . Self- OWTl ( - Enjoy engar . Moti writ my item"firscale (Swartz, 198 A"Xiety scale 54 The Writing Attitude Inventory consisted of 48 items which comprised the six-scale instrument, eight items per scale. Students responded to a Likert-type, forced-choice response system (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree). Items were scored 4, 3, 2, 1, respectively. To accommodate positively and negatively worded items, Sandman’s (1973) procedure for recoding responses was used. Then responses were summed across the eight items for each scale. This yielded six separate scores for the attitudinal dimensions rather than a single score, which is common in many attitude scales. The scales were: 1. Perception of the Writing Teacher--A student’s view regard- ing the teaching characteristics of his/her writing teacher. 2. Anxiety Toward Writing--The uneasiness a student feels in situations involving writing. 3. Value of Writing in Society--A student’s view regarding the usefulness of writing knowledge. 4. Self-concept in Writing-—A student’s perception of his/her own competence in writing. 5. Enjoyment of Writing--The pleasure a student derives from engaging in writing activities. 6. Motivation for Writing--A student’s desire to (h) work in writing beyond the class requirements. Validity. Validity coefficients, in the form of nonspurious item-to-scale correlations, were derived in an independent study (Swartz, 1987). The highest mean coefficient was found in the Anxiety scale (mean = .67); the lowest mean coefficient was for the Value scale (mi Atfitude Inven Table 3.2.--Va co Teach Item Note: 13 = i Individr '50 range are Writing Atti‘ bution of itr 55 Value scale (mean = .41). The validity coefficients for the Writing Attitude Inventory are found in Table 3.2. Table 3.2.--Validity coefficients for writing attitude measures: corrected item-to-scale correlations. Teacher Anxiety Value Item IS Item IS Item IS 5 56 7 .62 l 42 17 67 11 .61 9 34 21 60 20 .69 12 41 27 58 25 .74 15 37 31 58 34 .51 23 55 4O 62 36 .69 24 49 44 61 39 .76 33 38 46 61 43 .73 38 35 Mean .60 Mean .67 Mean .41 Self-concept Enjoyment Motivation Item 18 Item IS Item IS 4 63 2 .69 3 31 10 64 6 .72 8 53 16 53 13 .53 14 35 19 65 18 .67 32 55 22 45 26 .58 37 37 3O 72 28 59 41 56 35 49 29 4O 42 35 48 47 45 54 47 55 Mean 57 Mean 59 Mean 45 Note: IS = independent study data (N = 290) (Swartz, 1987). Individual item correlations for affective scales in the .30 to .50 range are acceptable (Gable, 1986). None of the 48 items in the Writing Attitude Inventory fell below .30. The correlation distri- bution of items within the six scales of the Writing Attitude Inven- tory is found in Table 3.3. Table 3.3.--Corr sca —__/ I Perception of t Anxiety Toward Value of Writin Self-concept in Enjoyment of Wr Motivation in t Rel i abi l i i the Writing At‘ (Swartz, 1987) Table 3.4.--Cr SC \ - Perceptio, - Anxiety T( . Value ofi . Self-concv ' Enjoyment - Motivatim \ 0301.s>wN.—- The acce The use of u measure, In fore, affect; Table 3.3.--Correlation distribution of items within the six scales of the Writing Attitude Inventory. <.30 .30-50 >.50 Perception of the Writing Teacher Anxiety Toward Writing Value of Writing in Society Self-concept in Writing Enjoyment of Writing Motivation in Writing oooooo puwuoo AVU'It-‘mm Reliability. The reliability coefficients of the six scales in the Writing Attitude Inventory were derived in an independent study (Swartz, 1987) and are found in Table 3.4. Table 3.4.--Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for the six scales of the Writing Attitude Inventory. Scale Alpha 1. Perception of the Writing Teacher .86 2 Anxiety Toward Writing .89 3. Value of Writing in Society .72 4. Self-concept in Writing .84 5. Enjoyment of Writing .85 6. Motivation in Writing .75 The accepted levels of reliability for an instrument depend on the use of the instrument and what the instrument is attempting to measure. In general, attitudes are not as stable as skills; there- fore, affective measures tend to have lower reliability levels than cognitive mea: Although it is bilities in thr frequently have the alpha relia Attitude Inveni Group Work Att‘ also used to d Twelve items \ group work. derived from ‘ the second sce The follr was maintaine instrument to Original Rewri tte 1- Wori ~ Gror 3- Nor gror 4~ Itr Student ”Stem (Stro 57 cognitive measures (Henerson, Morris, & Fitz-Gibbon, 1978). Although it is typical for good cognitive tests to have alpha relia- bilities in the high .805 or low .905, good affective instruments frequently have reliabilities as low as .70 (Gable, 1986). All of the alpha reliability coefficients for the six scales in the Writing Attitude Inventory were at the .70 level or above. Group Work Attitude Inventory Description. The shell technique (Haladyna et al., 1987) was also used to develop the Group Work Attitude Inventory (Appendix C). Twelve items were rewritten to address students’ attitudes toward These 12 items comprised a three-scale instrument as group work. One scale consisted of eight items; derived from factor analysis. the second scale, two items; and the third scale, three items. The following examples illustrate the parallel structure that was maintained between the original instrument and the rewritten instrument to assess attitudes on group work: Original instrument Mathematics is something which I enjoy very much. My mathematics teacher makes mathematics interesting. No matter how hard I try, I cannot understand mathematics. 1. 2. 3. 4. It doesn’t disturb me to work mathematics problems. Rewritten instrument-—group work Working in groups is something which I enjoy very much. Group leaders make teamwork interesting. No matter how hard I try, I cannot learn to work well in “h “No—- 0 . . . groups. It doesn’t disturb me to participate in group assignments. Students responded to a Likert-type, forced-choice response Items system (strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree). were scored 4. for each of the tudinal dimensi The scales 1. MVMv of not group 2. Value of gr< 3. Anxie group Validity appear in Chap Mm and Post-writi The rating te in teaching Br m communication evaluation in the evaluatio T°Tm (Appendi The DA evil uati on; section was H°M con were scored 4, 3, 2, 1, respectively, and summed across the items for each of the three scales. Three separate scores for the atti- tudinal dimension were derived. The scales were: 1. Involvement in Group--A student’s view regarding the degree of motivation, enjoyment, support, and success present in group work. Value of Group--A student’s view regarding the usefulness of group work activity. Anxiety Toward Group--The uneasiness a student feels in group situations. yaTiditv and reliability. Tests of validity and reliability appear in Chapter IV. Writinq Achievement Assessment Description. Writing achievement was measured through a pre- and post—writing assignment (Appendix D) evaluated by a rating team. The rating team consisted of four instructors who were experienced in teaching Business Communication 11 at Ferris State University. Instrument. Teachers of business communication were consulted, communication textbook suggestions were reviewed, and studies using evaluation instruments for writing were examined in order to prepare the evaluation instrument used in this study. A 14-item evaluation form (Appendix E) for both pre- and posttest letters was devised. The 0A 210 Evaluation Form was divided into four areas for evaluation: ‘task, general merit, format, and mechanics. Each section was assigned a nmximum number of points from which deduc- tions could be made during the evaluation process. The "task" section (2 P°TT response to the assessed the stu for the situat identifying and section (5 poi punctuation. Instrument proposed evalu: rated into the agreed that th ating student Mam rater agreeme‘ form, the rat lished rater during this 1 (Table 3.5), Table 3.5,-.p \ Let' Let Let Let Let 59 section (2 points) referred to the overall effectiveness of the response to the situation. The "general merit" section (12 points) assessed the student’s ability to use the correct letter arrangement for the situation. The "format" section (12 points) dealt with identifying and using the letter style requested. The "mechanics" section (5 points) highlighted errors in spelling, grammar, and punctuation. Instrument review. Members of the rating team critiqued the proposed evaluation form; suggestions for improvements were incorpo- rated into the final rating instrument. Members of the rating team agreed that the final evaluation form was a valid measure for evalu— ating student performance in letter-writing skills. Rateggreement. A training session was conducted to assess rater agreement. After a thorough discussion of the evaluation form, the rating team individually scored five letters and estab- lished rater agreement. Raters’ scores for each letter reviewed during this training session provide evidence of agreement levels (Table 3.5). Table 3.5.--Raters’ scores on practice writing evaluation. Rater Rater Rater Rater l 2 3 4 Letter A 7 9 9 9 Letter 8 13 10 10 10 Letter C 11 8 9 9 Letter D 11 14 11 14 Letter E 7 6 7 6 games thestudents’ pi ity. The code n Opha-numeric c contained 20 Te total of 476 TE through L, and letters were cc Z. Examples team independei four sections Procedure the Confereno prepared to it rater was pair ers. The rat‘ The pape scores were a paper. If ra rater was ask 531117.) pape Ehfifl.fippr§e_ mar “tel p0ints Vere earned 60 Qgggnizption ofymaterials. Names and dates were removed from the students’ papers and a coding system was used to provide anonym- ity. The code number that appeared at the top of each paper was an alpha-numeric combination. Twenty-two folders were prepared that contained 20 letters each; two folders contained 18 letters each. A total of 476 letters were evaluated. These folders were lettered A through L, and each letter within the folder was numbered. Pretest letters were coded D, Q, or P; posttest letters were coded M, W, or Z. Examples of letter codes would be BP13 and HZ7. The rating team independently evaluated pre- and post-writing assignments from four sections of Business Communication 11. Procedure. The four-person rating team worked independently in the Conference Room in the School of‘ Business. A matrix was prepared to indicate which folders each rater would evaluate. Each rater was paired with the other raters on an equal number of fold- ers. The rating session lasted approximately seven hours. The papers in each folder were read by two raters; the raters’ scores were averaged to determine the final score assigned to the paper. If raters’ scores varied by more than four points, a third rater was asked to evaluate the paper. Of the 476 papers evaluated, 53 (11%) papers required a third reading. Final Course Grade Description. The final course grade was determined by the total points earned divided by the total points possible. Points were earned on tests, individual assignments, and group assignments were earned on ‘ in the treatmei grades was 92% 1 72% = C; 70% = V_a1_idi_tv_a. tion of course mates of col l eg The effec‘ students’ pers Students in ti the effectiver experience. asked to comp cant events it the overall e forms entitle "imperative tive Learning Sample forms The con provide a dE hetivity, 61 were earned on tests, individual assignments, and group assignments in the treatment group. The scale used to determine the final grades was 92% = A; 90% = A-; 88% = B+; 82% = B; 80% = B-; 78% = C+; 72% = C; 70% = C-; 68% = 0+; 62% = D; 60% = D—; and below = F. Validity and reliability. The grades received upon the comple- tion of course requirements are routinely accepted as usable esti- mates of college achievement. Evaluation of Group Work The effectiveness of the cooperative learning groups, from the students’ perspective, was explored by using student evaluations. Students in the treatment group recorded their observations about the effectiveness of their groups during the cooperative learning experience. Beginning the fifth week of the term, students were asked to complete specialized evaluation forms indicating signifi- cant events involving the students’ cooperating with each other and the overall effectiveness of the group process. Students completed forms entitled: "Cooperative Learning Groups Observation Sheet," "Cooperative Learning GrOUps Self—evaluation Checklist," "Coopera- tive Learning Groups Evaluation Sheet," and "Group Work Evaluation." Sample forms are found in Appendices F through I. The content of the group work evaluations was analyzed to provide a descriptive account of the effectiveness of the group activity. The instrur included the 9 Communication Cooperative lea the control gro Ge_neral_Goal_§ The genera 1. To un writtr Secific Ob'er The spec 1. The cati 2. Usin busi rect a. 62 Instructional Design The instructional design for the control and treatment groups included the general goals and specific objectives of Business Communication 11 and the instructional units to be covered. Cooperative learning groups were used in the treatment group, not the control group. General Goals The general goals of Business Communication 11 are: 1. To understand the process involved in preparing effective written communication for business and management. 2. To strengthen writing skills and integrate correct grammar and punctuation in the preparation of business correspond- ence. 3. To develop cooperating skills such as working together, decision making, handling conflict and controversy, listen- ing, and sharing while involved in a team task. (Treatment group only.) Specific Objectives The specific objectives of Business Communication 11 are: 1. The student will be able to define and explain the communi— cation process. 2. Using case studies/situations, the student will compose business letters, executive summaries, and memoranda cor— rectly according to the following criteria: a. The letter is correct in the basics of purpose, con- tent, style, and form. b. The letter is grammatically correct and punctuated correctly. c. The letter is proofread and edited for mailability. walk The topics I. Commun 2. Princi 3. Writin 6mm Heterogen were used in high school GI Mesa organized in ability. Mul measured diff ous grade Te ghpuping doe Contributes clearly: "h‘ tentiy from Johnson hateT‘Pileneou more homoge, 63 Instructiopal Units The topics covered in Business Communication 11 included: 1. Communication Within Organizations 2. Principles of Effective Communication 3. Writing Letters, Short Reports, and Memorandums Writing about the routine and the favorable Writing about the unpleasant and the uncertain Writing special goodwill letters Writing application letters and resumes Writing persuasive letters Writing memorandums “'50 0.0 CTN o o o o o o 4. The Job Search and Interviewing Grouping Heterogeneous cooperative learning groups of ‘three students were used in the treatment group. Heterogeneity was determined by high school GPAs. Heterogeneous. Heterogeneous or multi-ability groups were organized in order to enable students to work with others of varied ability. Multiple studies have examined various kinds of groupings, measured different kinds of learning, and included students at vari- ous grade levels and ages. Studies have shown that homogeneous grouping does not alleviate attitude and behavior problems, but contributes to then: (Oakes, 1985). One conclusion has emerged clearly: "No group of students has been found to benefit consis- tently from being in a homogeneous group" (p. 7). Johnson and Johnson (1987) concurred with the need to deveTOp heterogeneous rather than homogeneous groups. They stated, "The more homogeneous the participants, the less each member adds to the resources presen less effective d The finding tudes and aptiti indicated that course grade. females should on several mea school GPA). nantly based ( representativer Students’ course file d1 this informat“ the averages. Business Comm. low according learning grou Of these grou m it is ii that ne enough tiCipat possibl T“ an inter Johnson (195 64 resources present in the others. In general homogeneous groups make less effective decisions than heterogeneous groups" (p. 91). The findings of an independent study on the effects of atti— tudes and aptitudes in predicting final course grades (Swartz, 1987) indicated that high school GPA was the best predictor of the final course grade. An additional finding indicated that males and females should be considered separately because of noted differences on several measures (ACT English, ACT Natural Science, and high school GPA). Therefore, students were assigned to groups predomi- nantly based on their high school GPAs, with attention given to representativeness by sex. Students’ high school GPAs were obtained from a mainframe course file devel0ped the first day of the term. In cases where this information was not available, students were asked to report the averages. Names of students in the treatment section of Business Communication 11 were divided into groups of high, mid, and low according to their high school GPA. Heterogeneous cooperative learning groups were formed by randomly drawing one name from each of these groups. Group size. Johnson and Johnson (1987) reported that It is important that decision-making groups be large enough so that needed resources and diversity are present, but small enough so that everyone’s resources are fully utilized, par- ticipation is high, acceptance and support by all members is possible, and coordination is easy. (p. 92) In an interview at a summer workshop on cooperative learning, Johnson (1988) stated that a group of three is considered a "work group" and woulc postsecondary ll consisted of ti and males were gyggipg. learning group‘ among the memb developed thro dass. Webb ( amepmm was the “wei individual’s : the group av adopted as ti cooperative "noun" proje eAual to 67% The 0biectivr vidual basis The stu University SCOY‘ES, Eng Tequested fv 65 group" and would be appropriate for learning business writing at the postsecondary level. Therefore, these cooperative learning groups consisted of three students with varying abilities. Both females and males were represented in these groups. Grading. An important component in successful cooperative learning groups is the development of a positive interdependence among the members of the group. Part of this interdependence is developed through the reward (grade) system incorporated in the class. Webb (1982) cited several studies that compared individual and group reward structures. One of the reward structures described was the "weighted individual score." Under this system, the individual’s score was a weighted combination of his/her score and the group average. The weighted individual score concept was adOpted as the grading practice incorporated in the heterogeneous cooperative learning groups on papers that were designated as "group" projects. The final score on an individual’s assignment was equal to 67% of the individual’s grade plus 33% of the group grade. The objective tests and nongrOUp assignments were graded on an indi— vidual basis only. Data Anal sis The study was conducted during the winter term at Ferris State University and was concluded at the end of that term. The ACT scores, English 112 or equivalent scores, and high school GPAs were requested from the Testing Office. W A computer format was as i Qph Line I: 1 1 I 2 2 Line 2 Line 3 Statistical Processing A computerized record for each student was accumulated. format was as follows: Line 1: Line 2 Line 3 Columns 1-9 11-12 14-15 17-18 20-21 23-24 27-29 31-33 36-42 44-47 70-72 51-52 54 56 59-60 64 12 16-17 19-20 22-23 25-26 28-29 31-32 43-44 46—47 49-50 52-53 55-56 58-59 66 Data ID ALI English Math Social Science Natural Science Composite Questionnaire Dapa Final Course Grade High School GPA Curriculum Code Section Number English 112 (or equivalent) Grade Group Work Attitude Pretest Involvement in Group Value of Group Anxiety Toward Group Group Work Attitude Posttest Involvement in Group Value of Group Anxiety Toward Group Sex (0 = Female; 1 = Male) Writinq Attitude Pretest Perceptions of the Writing Teacher Anxiety Toward Writing Value of Writing in Society Self-concept in Writing Enjoyment of Writing Motivation for Writing Writinq Attitude Posttest Perceptions of the Writing Teacher Anxiety Toward Writing Value of Writing in Society Self-concept in Writing Enjoyment of Writing Motivation for Writing The The stud Ferris State analyzed usin Criteria for # Research Que: Quantita research que: Researc cooperative traditional as assessed Attitude Inv The Wr Inventory wr test measure for signifj work after used to dei aTphel level Resear c°°perativ tradition, assessed by As th weak 0f cl: "935 TETte 67 The student data were entered on the mainframe IBM computer at Ferris State University through the terminal system. The data were analyzed using the SPSSx statistical package. mm W Quantitative and qualitative measures were used to address four research questions. Research uestion 1. Do students who experience heterogeneous cooperative learning groups differ from those who experience traditional instruction in attitudes toward writing and group work as assessed by the Writing Attitude Inventory and the Group Work Attitude Inventory? The Writing Attitude Inventory and the Group Work Attitude Inventory were used as pre— and posttest measures. From the post- test measures, nine scores were computed. MANOVA was used to test for significant differences in attitudes toward writing and group work after participating in cooperative learning groups. MANOVA was used to determine whether the scores differed from zero. The .05 alpha level was used. Research Question 2. Do students who experience heterogeneous cooperative learning groups differ from those who experience traditional instruction in achievement in business writing as assessed by a post-measure of business letter writing? As the pretest measure, students responded during the first week of class to a case problem involving the preparation of a busi— ness letter. As the posttest measure, students responded to the same case sitl means differed Reseflh. a posttest wr scores, Engli writing assig group work)? Step-wis tive influenr .05 alpha le dictors. Researc cooperative able final e The cor ations was strengths 1 groups. A non pOSttesting cppperatir Communi cat Concerned group Work 68 same case situation. A t-test was used to determine whether the means differed significantly. The .05 alpha level was used. Research Question 3. 15 business writing skill, as measured by a posttest writing assignment, related to pre-course ability (ACT scores, English 112 or equivalent grade, high school GPA, pretest writing assignment) and pre-course attitudes (toward writing and group work)? Step-wise multiple regression was used to determine the rela- tive influence of the pretest measures on final achievement. The .05 alpha level was used to assess the contribution of the pre- dictors. Research Question 4. Do students who experience heterogeneous cooperative learning groups report, through written comments, favor- able final evaluations? The content of the students’ periodic and final course evalu- ations was analyzed by the instructor to identify the perceived strengths and weaknesses of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups. Sputum A nonequivalent control group design with pretesting and posttesting was used to assess the effectiveness of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups in the teaching of business communication at the postsecondary level. Research questions were concerned with (a) the attitudes of students toward writing and group work, (b) the achievement of students in business writing, (c) the rel ationsh‘ achievement, ar learning groups 69 the relationship of pre-course ability and attitude measures to achievement, and (d) the effectiveness of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups. The stud heterogeneou: communication from the scor Business Comm quarter, 198E participated consisted of lecture-discl assess stude work, and wr qualitative Four r; students to Students in ibTTTiV an effectivene: raised, 1 qUestions) BeTPTe the CHAPTER IV FINDINGS The study was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups in teaching business communication at the postsecondary level. The findings were derived from the scores and data collected from 119 students enrolled in Business Communication 11 at Ferris State University during winter quarter, 1988. The treatment group consisted of 30 students who participated in cooperative learning groups. The control group consisted of 89 students who were instructed in the traditional lecture-discussion method. Pre- and posttest measures were used to assess students’ attitudes toward writing, attitudes toward group work, and writing ability. Students’ comments were recorded for qualitative analysis. Four research questions concerned with (a) the attitudes of students toward. writing and group work, (b) the achievement of students in business writing, (c) the relationship of pre-course ability and attitude measures to achievement, and (d) the effectiveness of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups were raised. The statistical analysis was guided by the research questions, which are restated as null hypotheses in this chapter. Before the analysis, validity and reliability, a description of the 70 sample, and discussed. Writing Attit Validila on data gath Attitudes a Implication Communicati effectivenes teaching of provided th Writing Att' means of th study are c the indeper '57); for i the postte: lowest coe Value of Motivation wTTTThQ in 71 sample, and the exploration of pretreatment differences are discussed. yaljdityyand Reliability Writinq Attitude Inventory Validity. Validity coefficients were presented in Chapter III on data gathered in an independent study entitled "The Effects of Attitudes and Aptitudes in Predicting Final Course Grades: Implications for Multi-Ability Group Organization in Business Communication Classes" (Swartz, 1987). This study on ‘the effectiveness of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups in the teaching of business communication at the postsecondary level also provided the opportunity to explore further the validity of the Writing Attitude Inventory. The validity coefficients and the scale means of the independent study and the pretest and posttest of this study are compared in Table 4.1. Highest coefficients were found in the independent study for the Anxiety Toward Writing scale (mean = .67); for the pretest, Anxiety Toward Writing (mean = .65); and for the posttest, Perception of the Writing Teacher (mean = .78). The lowest coefficients were found in the independent study for the Value of Writing in Society (mean = .41); for the pretest, Motivation for Writing (mean = .40); and for the posttest, Value of Writing in Society (mean = .45). 4.1.--Va Table Co /'._— Teacher Item IS PF 5 .56 .M 17 .67 .1 21 .60 .6 27 .58 .6 31 .58 .6 40 .62 .7 44 .61 .6 46 .61 .E Mean 60 i Self-con Item 15 4 .63 . 10 .54 16 .53 . 19 .65 . 22 .45 . 30 .72 . 35 .49 . 48 ,47 Mean 57 \ Note: 13 = PR = P0 = Indiv‘ the accept three time Thiovment Words" fel 72 Table 4.1.-~Validity coefficients for writing attitude measures: Corrected item-to-scale correlations. Teacher Anxiety Value Item IS PR PO Item IS PR PO Item IS PR PO 5 56 46 71 7 62 .73 67 1 42 30 41 17 67 58 78 11 .61 .65 67 9 34 37 49 21 60 60 86 20 .69 .57 70 12 41 47 50 27 58 64 71 25 .74 .65 67 15 37 45 59 31 58 62 76 34 51 .47 58 23 55 39 53 4O 62 7O 81 36 69 .68 7O 24 49 49 4O 44 61 64 81 39 76 .74 69 33 38 49 36 46 61 62 79 43 73 .69 61 38 35 34 30 Mean 60 61 78 Mean 67 65 66 Mean 41 41 45 Self-concept Enjoyment Motivation Item IS PR PO Item IS PR PO Item IS PR PO 4 63 59 66 2 69 .64 64 3 31 12 19 10 64 67 71 6 72 .57 68 8 53 62 61 16 53 55 44 13 .53 .42 52 14 35 39 31 19 65 56 61 18 .67 .52 59 32 55 49 43 22 45 48 53 26 .58 .55 54 37 37 36 59 30 72 71 73 28 .59 .50 51 41 56 53 61 35 49 42 4O 29 .40 08 12 42 35 15 27 48 47 36 45 45 .54 32 50 47 55 51 64 Mean .57 .54 .57 Mean .59 .45 .51 Mean .45 .40 .46 Note: IS Independent study data (N = 290) (Swartz, 1987). Pretest data (N = 119). Posttest data (N = 119). v :0 II II II Individual item correlations for affective scales fell below the acceptable .30 level three times in the pretest measurement and three times in the posttest measurement (Gable, 1986). In the Enjoyment of Writing scale, the item "I like to play games that use words" fell in the less-than-acceptable range for an individual item in both the Pi scale, two ite pretest and p1 assignments be I do in writ within the Si) Table 4.2. Table 4.2.--C \ Teacher Anxiety Vnue Self-concept Ehioyment Motivation \ Reliab Cempared to (Table 4.3) Scales in t iii level ( 73 in both the pretest and posttest. In the Motivation for Writing scale, two items were in the less—than-acceptable range in both the pretest and posttest. These items were "I like the easy writing assignments best," and "It is important to me to understand the work I do in writing class." The correlation distributions of items within the six scales of the Writing Attitude Inventory are found in Table 4.2. Table 4.2.--Correlation distribution of items within the six scales of the Writing Attitude Inventory. Independent Study Pretest Posttest .30- .30- .30- <.30 .50 >.50 <.30 .50 >.50 <.30 .50 >.50 Teacher 0 0 8 0 1 7 0 0 8 Anxiety 0 0 8 0 1 7 0 0 8 Value 0 7 1 0 8 0 0 6 2 Self-concept 0 3 5 0 3 5 0 3 5 Enjoyment 0 1 7 1 3 4 1 1 6 Motivation 0 4 4 2 3 3 2 2 4 Reliability. The reliability data gathered in this study were compared to the reliability data derived from the independent study (Table 4.3). All of the alpha reliability coefficients for the six scales in the Writing Attitude Inventory were at the .70 acceptabil- ity level (Gable, 1986). Table 4.3.--Cr_< Sl} / Scal / . Perceptior . Anxiety T1 Value ofl . Self-conc . Enjoyment . Motivatio a‘w-hWNH Group Work A Validit nonspurious posttest dz Toward Grou (mean = .77 scale for '58)- The pretest an that compr validity (Gable, p 74 Table 4.3.--Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for the six scales of the Writing Attitude Inventory. Alpha Scale IS PR P0 1. Perception of the Writing Teacher .86 .86 .94 2. Anxiety Toward Writing .89 .88 .89 3. Value of Writing in Society .72 .72 .75 4. Self-concept in Writing .84 .82 .84 5. Enjoyment of Writing .85 .75 .80 6. Motivation in Writing .75 .70 .76 Note: IS Independent study data (N = 290) (Swartz, 1987). PR P0 Pretest data (N = 119). Posttest data (N = 119). Group Work Attitude Inventotx Validity. Validity coefficients (Table 4.4) in the form of nonspurious item-to-scale correlations were derived from pretest and posttest (data. Highest coefficients were found in the Anxiety Toward Group scale for both the pretest (mean = .64) and posttest (mean = .77). Lowest coefficients were found in the Value of Group scale for both the pretest (mean = .41) and the posttest (mean = .58). The coefficients for the Involvement in Group scale in the pretest and posttest were .61 and .65, respectively. The 12 items that comprised three scales in the Group Work Attitude Inventory had validity coefficients at or above the acceptable level of .30 (Gable, 1986). ble 4.4.--Va‘ Ta Co / Involvement i Group Item PR 49 .71 50 .71 51 .48 52 .68 56 .68 58 .40 59 .67 60 .57 Mean 61 Note: PR P0 The cor 0f the Group Table 4.5.- \ InV0lvemen AHXiety TOT Value of G \ 75 Table 4.4.--Validity coefficients for Group Work Attitude measures: Corrected item-to—scale correlations. Involvement in Value of Anxiety Toward Group Group Group Item PR P0 Item PR P0 Item PR P0 49 .71 .76 53 .41 .58 55 .64 .77 50 .71 .80 54 .41 .58 57 .64 .77 51 .48 47 52 .68 63 56 .68 75 58 .40 50 59 .67 73 60 .57 52 Mean .61 .65 Mean .41 .58 Mean .64 .77 Note: PR = Pretest data (N = 119). P0 = Posttest data (N = 119) The correlation distribution of items within the three scales of the Group Work Attitude Inventory are found in Table 4.5. Table 4.5.--Correlation distribution of items within the three scales of the Group Work Attitude Inventory. Pretest Posttest <.30 .30-.50 >.50 <.30 .30-.50 >.50 Involvement in Group 0 2 6 0 2 3 Anxiety Toward Group 0 0 2 0 0 0 Value of Group 0 2 0 0 2 Reliabili Group Work At posttest admii Table 4.6.--C 5 Scale 1. Involvemi 2. Value of 3. Anxiety ' In the Group scale posttest rel A tota geneous coc c0mmunicati 103 student 38 Students hlgh schoo] Engli: StUdents 1 76 Reliability. The reliabilities of the three scales of the Group Work Attitude Inventory were derived from the pretest and posttest administration (Table 4.6). Table 4.6.--Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for the three scales of the Group Work Attitude Inventory. Alpha Scale Pretest Posttest N = 119 N = 119 1. Involvement in Group .86 .88 2. Value of Group .57 .73 3. Anxiety Toward Group .78 .87 In the Group Work Attitude Inventory, the pretest Value of Group scale reliability (.57) was below the accepted level; however, posttest reliability (.73) was acceptable (Gable, 1986). Description of the Sample A total of 119 students participated in this study of hetero- geneous cooperative learning groups in the teaching of business communication at Ferris State University. Of these 119 students, 103 students had ACT scores on file with the university. A total of 88 students had high school GPAs on file; 19 students reported their high school GPAs; 12 students had missing data. English 112 (or equivalent) grades were available for 111 students in the study. Four of the remaining students received credit-by-exan the prerequi 5 college recon Overall, were male. revealed the (Table 4.7) 2 Table 4.7.-- Section 1010 g 1030 1000 Total \ 77 credit-by-examination for English 112, three students had not met the prerequisite, and one student received transfer credit but no college records were available. Overall, 50 (42%) of the sample members were female; 69 (58%) were male. .A comparison between the control and treatment groups revealed the similarity of the two groups on group composition (Table 4.7) and pre-course ability (Table 4.8). Table 4.7.--Comparison between control and treatment groups on group composition. Control Group Treatment Group Total Male Female Total Male Female Section N N % N % Section N N % N % 1010 28 18 64 10 36 1040 30 16 53 14 47 1030 29 16 55 13 45 1080 32 19 59 13 41 Total 89 53 60 36 40 Total 30 16 53 14 47 Table 4.8.--C( c1 / Ability Measu _/__—— AQI English Mathematics Social Studi1 Natural Scie1 Composite High School English 112 Student 1988-1989, 1 university. Health were Table 4,9_. \ Schoo' \ Arts and 5 Business Education Pharmacy Technology Total \ aTot 78 Table 4.8.--Comparison between control and treatment groups on pre- course ability. Control Group Treatment Group Ability Measure Mean S.D. Mean S.D. A_l English 16.4 5.1 14.3 4.9 Mathematics 15.6 6.9 12.5 6.3 Social Studies 14.7 6.7 13.9 6.9 Natural Science 19.7 6.3 16.8 5.8 Composite 16.7 5.1 14.5 5.0 High School GPA 2.7 .5 2.6 .5 English 112 2.5 .6 2.5 .8 Students enrolled in Business Communication during winter term, 1988-1989, represented five of the seven schools/colleges within the university. Only the College of Optometry and the School of Allied Health were not represented in this sample (Table 4.9). Table 4.9.--Student enrollment by schools. School Number Percent Arts and Science 14 11.8 Business 96 80.7 Education 5 4.2 Pharmacy 2 1.7 Technology 2 1.7 Total 119 100.121 aTotal greater than 100% due to rounding. Several differences, groups at the Data mi: fing the me: means are fr order to avc The mean his the sample, eight studel MANOVA between the and a probe ered to be the two gr Social Sci lent grade writing an Univa the relat Selected bEtween 9 Natural s when st 79 Exploration of Pretreatment Differences Several statistical procedures were used to determine what differences, if any, existed between the treatment and control groups at the beginning of the research. Data missing from student records were estimated by substitu- ting the mean scores. According to Tabachnik and Fidell (1983), means are frequently inserted for missing values in a data set in order to avoid eliminating existing data in multivariate analysis. The mean high school GPA (2.671) was substituted for 12 students in the sample, and the mean for English 112 (2.516) was substituted for eight students. MANOVA was used to compare pretest ability and attitudes between the groups. The MANOVA produced a Wilks’ lambda of .80938 and a probability level of 0.300; thus the two groups were consid- ered to be similar (Table 4.10). No difference was found between the two groups on the measures of ACT scores (English, Mathematics, Social Science, Natural Science, Composite), English 112 or equiva- lent grade, high school GPA, prewriting ability, or attitudes toward writing and group work. Univariate analyses were conducted to investigate more closely the relationship between the treatment and control groups and the selected variables. Findings revealed significant differences between groups for the variables ACT Mathematics (p = .046), ACT Natural Science (p = .032), and Self—concept in Writing (p = .024) when studied independently. However, because MANOVA was L_.__.______________fl__.._ 1 . insignificant univariate an 4.lO.--Analys / MANOVA: Variables AQI English Mathematics Social scier Natural scie Composite High school English 112 Vritin Att Perception Anxiety top Value of wy Self-concep Enjoyment 1 Motivation (MM InV0lvemen Value of Alleety tc Prewriting \ *Slgi 80 insignificant, the differences between groups as identified in the univariate analysis were interpreted as chance differences. 4.10.--Analysis of pretest differences between groups. MANOVA: Wilks’ lambda = .80938 F = 1.17753 p = .300 Variables F P _C_l English 3.42032 .067 Mathematics 4.07189 .046* Social science 0.29077 .591 Natural science 4.73968 .032* Composite 3.87041 .052 High school GPA 0.63460 .428 English 112 0.78966 .376 Writing Attitudes Perception of the writing teacher 3.31399 .072 Anxiety toward writing 1.85439 .176 Value of writing in society 0.78676 .377 Self-concept in writing 5.28403 .024* Enjoyment of writing 1.09958 .297 Motivation for writing 1.11094 .294 Group Work Attitudes Involvement in group 0.10860 .742 Value of group 1.17197 .282 Anxiety toward group 0.50623 .478 Prewriting ability 0.72610 .396 *Significant at the .05 level. Further a wide variei flage effect as the ACT m for the ACT None of the original MAN T-tests pretreatment dependent v1 ment group Toward Mrii control gro school GPA, Writing in Motivation English 11: 81 Further consideration led to speculation that the inclusion of a wide variety of measures in MANOVA may have resulted in a camou- flage effect on a potentially significant subset of variables such as the ACT measures. Consequently, separate MANOVAs were performed for the ACT measures, grade measures, and attitudinal measures. None of the MANOVAs were statistically significant. Thus, the original MANOVA was supported. T-tests were performed on the variables to further describe pretreatment similarities and differences (Table 4.11). Of the 17 dependent variables considered in this study, the individual treat- ment group means were slightly higher on three scales: Anxiety Toward Writing, Involvement in Group, and Value of Group. The control group means were slightly higher on the ACT variables, high school GPA, prewriting, Perception of the Writing Teacher, Value of Writing in Society, Self-concept in Writing, Enjoyment of Writing, Motivation for Writing, and Anxiety Toward Group. The mean for English 112 was the same for both the treatment and control groups. 4.11.--Analys treatn / Variable AC1 English Mathematics Social Scier Natural Scie Composite High School English 112 Prewriting Mritin Att Perception Anxiety T01 Value in s Self-conce Enjoyment Motivation Abouthork Involvemer Value of ( Mxhtyti \ The tative m paCkage ' 82 4.11.--Analysis of the ability and attitude differences between the treatment and control groups. Treatment Group Control Group Variable Mean N Mean S.D. N Mean S.D. Diff. _C_T_ English 28 14.3 4.4 75 16.4 5.1 2.1 Mathematics 28 12.5 6.3 75 15.6 6.9 3.1 Social Science 28 13.9 6.9 75 14.7 6.7 0.8 Natural Science 28 16.8 5.8 75 19.7 6.3 2.9 Composite 28 14.5 5.0 75 16.7 5.1 2.2 High School GPA 30 2.6 0.1 89 2.7 0.5 0.1 English 112 30 2.5 .8 89 2.5 0.6 0.0 Prewriting 30 8.6 3.2 89 8.8 3.7 0.2 WritianAttitudes Perception of Teacher 30 23.6 2.7 89 24.4 3.9 0.8 Anxiety Toward Writing 30 17.9 3.8 89 16.8 3.7 1.1 Value in Society 30 26.6 3.1 89 27.0 2.9 0.4 Self-concept in Writing 30 21.0 3.0 89 22.6 3.7 1.6 Enjoyment of Writing 30 20.4 2.6 89 21.0 3.4 0.6 Motivation for Writing 30 19.2 2.9 89 20.2 3.4 1.0 Group Work Attitudes Involvement in Group 30 23.8 4 0 89 23 2 4.0 0.6 Value of Group 30 6.9 l l 89 6 7 1.1 0.2 Anxiety Toward Group 30 3.4 l 2 89 3 8 1.4 0.4 Analysis of Research Questions The first three research questions were evaluated by quanti- tative methods. Data were analyzed using the SPSSx statistical package. The fourth research question was analyzed qualitatively. ward Writin 31/ The firs heterogeneous experience t1 group work a Group Work A‘ Ho 1: writing ous co instruc MANOVA treatment a1 work as mea 2.58987 ant Hypothesis between thv participati tion and t1 Univa two variat Involvemen 83 Differences in Attitudes Toward Writinqgand Group Work The first research question was, "00 students who experience heterogeneous cooperative learning groups differ from those who experience traditional instruction in attitudes toward writing and group work as assessed by the Writing Attitude Inventory and the Group Work Attitude Inventory?" L1: There is no difference between the attitudes toward writing and group work of students participating in heterogene- ous cooperative learning group instruction and traditional instruction. MANOVA was used to test for significant differences between the treatment and control groups in attitudes toward writing and group work as measured by the posttest. Wilks’ lambda had an F-value of 2.58987 and a probability of 0.010 (Table 4.12). Therefore, Hypothesis 1 was rejected. There was a significant difference between the attitudes toward writing and group work of students participating in heterogeneous cooperative learning group instruc- tion and traditional instruction. Univariate F-test revealed that the significance was limited to two variables: Perception of the Writing Teacher (p = .00) and Involvement in Group (p = -01)- Table 4.12.-- / MANOVA: Variabl Writing Atti Perception ( Anxiety Tow; Value of Wr‘ Self-concep Enjoyment 0 Motivation Group Attit Involvement Value of G1 Anxiety T01 \ *Sign A t-l Teacher a1 had a higl 84 Table 4.12.--Differences in attitudes toward writing and group work between groups. MANOVA: Wilks’ lambda = .82383 F = 2.58987 p = .010 Variable F Sig. of F Writing Attitudes Perception of the Writing Teacher 2.97526 .000* Anxiety Toward Writing 0.08820 .767 Value of Writing in Society 2.57511 .111 Self-concept in Writing 0.14012 .709 Enjoyment of Writing 0.30252 .583 Motivation for Writing 0.03385 .854 Group Attitudes Involvement in Group 6.62258 .011* Value of Group 0.01143 .915 1.30441 .256 Anxiety Toward Group *Significant at the .05 level. A t-test analysis for the variables Perception of the Writing Teacher and Involvement in Group revealed that the treatment group had a higher mean score on both scales (Table 4.13). Table 4.13--G a /_ Variabl ___"—— Perception 0‘ Writing Teac Involvement Gain sr tudes of 5 control gro gain score (+4.2). Al The negativ in anxiety For tl Self-conce groups wer two scales The treat seven atti 85 Table 4.13--Group comparisons in Perception of the Writing Teacher and Involvement in Group scales. Treatment Control Group Group Variable Mean N Mean S.D. N Mean S.D. Diff. Perception of the 30 27.8 3.1 89 24.1 5.3 +3.7 Writing Teacher Involvement in Group 30 25.6 3.9 89 23.5 3.9 +2.1 Gain scores were computed on the writing and group work atti- tudes of students in the treatment group (Table 4.14) and the control group (Table 4.15). For the treatment group, the highest gain score was on the scale Perception of the Writing Teacher (+4.2). All scales for the treatment group showed positive gains. The negative gain scores on the Anxiety scales indicate a lessening in anxiety and therefore represent positive outcomes. For the control group, the highest gain score was for the scale Self-concept in Writing (+.4). When the gain scores of the two groups were compared, the control group received higher scores in two scales: Anxiety Toward Group (-.2) and Value of Group (+.3). The treatment group received higher gain scores in the remaining seven attitudinal scales. Table 4.14.-- Variable / Writing Atti Perception c Anxiety Tow: Value of Wr' Self-concep Enjoyment 0‘ Motivation Group Work Involvement Value of G1 Anxiety Tov Table 4.15 Variable Perceptio Anxiety T Value of Self~conc Eniovment MOtivatic 6mm InVOlVEmT VaTUe of Anxiety ‘ 86 Table 4.14.--Comparison of pre— and posttest attitudes toward writing and group work for the treatment group. Pretest Posttest Variable Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Gain Writinq Attitudes Perception of the Writing Teacher 23.6 2.7 27.8 3.1 +4.2 Anxiety Toward Writing 17.9 3.8 16.5 4.0 -1.4 Value of Writing in Society 26.6 3.0 27.8 2.6 +1.2 Self-concept in Writing 21.0 3.0 22.7 3.6 +1.7 Enjoyment of Writing 20.4 2.6 21.7 3.2 +1.3 Motivation for Writing 19.2 2.9 20.4 3.4 +1.2 Group Work Attitudes Involvement in Group 23.8 4.0 25.6 3.9 +1.8 y Value of Group 6.9 1.1 7.0 1.0 + .1 Anxiety Toward Group 3.4 1.2 3.3 1.1 - .1 Table 4.15.--Comparison of pre— and posttest attitudes toward writing and group work for the control grOUp. Pretest Posttest Variable Mean S.D. Mean S.D. Gain WritingAttitudes Perception of the Writing Teacher 24.4 3.9 24.1 5.3 — .3 Anxiety Toward Writing 16.8 3.7 16.7 3.6 - .1 Value of Writing in Society 27.0 2.9 26.8 3.2 - .2 Self-concept in Writing 22.6 3.7 23.0 3.5 + .4 Enjoyment of Writing 21.0 3.4 21.3 3.5 + .3 Motivation for Writing 20.2 3.4 20.2 3.4 .0 Group Work Attitudes Involvement in Group 23.2 4.0 23.5 3.9 + .3 Value of Group 6.7 1.1 7.0 1.0 + .3 Anxiety Toward Group 3.8 1.4 3.6 1.3 - .2 Researc heterogeneou experienced group work. Achievement The se heterogeneo experience ing skill 2 Ho 2: of st1 group A t-t differed. not presen There was participa instructh ment grou hMet] Measure \ Postwrit \ 87 Research Question I asked whether students who experienced heterogeneous cooperative learning groups differed from those who experienced traditional instruction in attitudes toward writing and group work. The null hypothesis was rejected. Achievement Gain The second research question was, "Do students who eXperience heterogeneous cooperative learning groups differ from those who experience traditional instruction in achievement in business writ- ing skill as assessed by a post-measure of business letter writing?“ flg_2: There is no difference in business writing achievement of students participating in heterogeneous cooperative learning group instruction and traditional instruction. A ‘t-test. was used to determine 'whether the posttest means differed. 'The t-test indicated that statistical significance was not present (Table 4.16). Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not rejected. There was no difference in business writing achievement of students participating in heterogeneous cooperative learning group instruction and traditional instruction. The mean for the treat- ment group was 14.5, and the mean for the control group was 14.6. Table 4.16.--Achievement as determined by the posttest business writing assessment. Treatment Group Control Group Mean t— Measure N Mean S.D. N Mean S.D. Diff. Value Sig. Postwriting 30 14.5 4.3 89 14.6 4.2 -0.1 -0.07 0.945 Althoug group than 1 gain in ach point gain 1 Table 4.17. Variable Combined G1 Prewriting Postwritinl Treatment 5 Prewriting Postwritir Control Prewritin Postwriti \ *Sig Resr heteroge eXPerie1 Writing 100. 11 SIOUps; 88 Although writing achievement was no greater for the treatment group than for the control group, both grOUps showed a significant gain in achievement (Table 4.17). Paired t-tests revealed a six- point gain for both the treatment and control groups. Table 4.17.--Gains in achievement from prewriting to postwriting. Difference t- Variable N Mean S.D. in Mean Value p Combined Groups Prewriting 119 8.7017 3.570 5.8613 17.97 .000* Postwriting 14.5630 4.193 Treatment Prewriting 30 8.5500 3.185 5.9667 9.62 .000* Postwriting 14.5167 4.252 Control Prewriting 89 8.7528 3.706 5.8258 15.14 .000* Postwriting 14.5787 4.197 *Significant at the .05 level. Research Question 2 asked whether students who experience heterogeneous cooperative learning groups differed from those who experienced traditional instruction in achievement in business writing skill as assessed by a post-measure of business letter writ— ing. There was no significant difference in achievement between the groups; therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. However, the data re significant Relationship and Attitude The th‘ measured by abflity (AC pretest wri and group 1 Ho 3: achie Step- tive infll relationsf independeI school GI measures) nificance Three va1 ment: 1 Hlpothes test wr attitude 89 the data revealed that both treatment and control groups made significant gains in writing achievement. Repationship of Pre-course Ability and Attitude Measures to Achievement The third research question was, "Is business writing skill, as measured by a posttest writing assignment, related to pre-course ability (ACT scores, English 112 or equivalent, high school GPA, pretest writing assignment, and pre-course attitudes (toward writing and group work)? Ho 3: There is no relationship between posttest writing achievement and pre-course ability and pre-course attitudes. Step-wise multiple regression was used to determine the rela- tive influence of the pretest measures on final achievement. The relationship between the final writing assignment grade and the independent variables (English ll2 or equivalent, ACT scores, high school GPA, pretest writing assignment, and pre-course attitude measures) reached .62650 (Table 4.18). The .05 alpha level of sig- nificance was used to assess the contribution of the predictors. Three variables were found that predicted 39.3% of writing achieve- ment: Prewriting, ACT English, and Pregroup Value. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was rejected. There was a relationship between post- test writing achievement and pre-course ability and pre-course attitudes. Table 4.18.-- / Step Varia No. Enter / 1 Prewr 2 ACT I 3 Value *Signi The va Science, h Teacher, A1 Writing, E in Group, equation. Drerequisi business 1 Thr01 equation bUSlnESS‘ Pred .195 The students 90 Table 4.18.--Prediction of writing achievement using ability and attitude measures. Step Variable Multiple Multiple Increase F at No. Entered R R Sq. in R Sq. Step 1 Prewriting .56633 .32073 .24560 47.68883* 2 ACT English .60239 .36287 .23952 28.47734* 3 Value of Group .62650 .39250 .23400 21.32124* *Significant at the .05 level. The variables ACT Mathematics, ACT Social Science, ACT Natural Science, high school GPA, English 112, Perception of the Writing Teacher, Anxiety Toward Writing, Value of Writing, Self-concept in Writing, Enjoyment of Writing, Motivation for Writing, Involvement in Group, and Anxiety Toward Group did not appear in the prediction equation. Of particular interest is that English 112, which is a prerequisite for Business Communication II, was not a predictor of business writing skill. Through the use of the SPSSx statistical package, a prediction equation was evolved that combined ability and attitudes to predict business writing skill. Predicted achievement = (Prewriting x .528842) + (ACT English x .195225) + (Pregroup Value x -.644556) + 11.114156 The negative coefficient for Value of Group suggests that those students who value group work the least do better in writing. WEE commitm— The f01 heterogene01 comments, f: To ass qualitative weekly sum instruments Sheet, Cor Cooperati1 Evaluation instrument Cooperativ Observatic The cooperati together through w 1n the f members Principl tion, an Eng groups 1 Date. 5 91 Effectiveness of Heterogeneous Cooperative Learninq Groups The fourth research question was, "00 students who experience heterogeneous cooperative learning groups report, through written comments, favorable final evaluations?" To assess the effectiveness of the cooperative learning groups, qualitative data were gathered through content analysis of students’ weekly summaries and final course~ evaluation. These evaluation instruments were entitled Cooperative Learning Groups Observation Sheet, Cooperative Learning Groups Self-evaluation Checklist, Cooperative Learning Groups Evaluation Sheet, and Group Work Evaluation. A summary of the content of each of these evaluation instruments follows. Cooperative Learning Groups Observation Sheet The treatment group was organized into ten heterogeneous cooperative learning groups of three students each. After working together as a group for four weeks, students began processing, through weekly evaluations, their effectiveness in working together. In the first evaluation, students commented on ways in which group members encouraged others to participate, explained concepts and principles, expressed support, gave directions, asked for informa- tion, and paraphrased ideas and concepts. Encgpnages others topparticipate. Students in six of the ten groups reported that all group members encouraged others to partici- pate. Sample responses included: “She a encoura “He al1 vate a within "[She the si papers The re from all 0' “shy“ seem “Sinc does “Well He r1 proot just Some ently by “He eve1 In contr: “He “T1 to In contt 111 DO 31 DOtenti 92 "She always participates in group discussion and is always encouraging input from others during decision making." "He always is an upbeat person and encourages others to moti- vate and get thinking. He always wants others participating within our group.“ "[She is] very helpful and asks others to add what they feel the situation needs. Whenever we are criticizing one another’s papers she always asks us what we think would work the best." The remaining groups reported a lesser degree of encouragement from all of the group members. Those students identified as being "shy" seemed to offer little, if any, encouragement to others. "Since she is shy she has trouble getting going. But when she does she is very good." "Well to be quite honest, he really doesn’t contribute much. He really only talks when he wants something like for us to proofread his paper and he does not ask for our opinions. He just expects us to fix his mistakes." Sometimes an individual within a group was evaluated differ— ently by the other group members. For example: "He tried to encourage but he is shy to talk. I don’t think he ever did." In contrast to-- ”He usually encouraged us to participate writing our letters." or "There really isn’t any reason to encourage our group members to participate. I think we work well as a group." In contrast to-- "I believe that not one of us supported encouragement to our potential." By reviewing these comments, the instructor could identify potential areas of conflict within the group. For cooperative learning gr resolve the‘ Expléi cooperative stands the Part of ti encourage al., 1988) for inform on. Sampl “She If Wt best IlIf‘ give "If diff for Only "M01 on. "He is Addition tively i Egg lmPOFta et at” the for 93 learning groups to be effective, members must be encouraged to resolve their conflicts (Johnson et al., 1988). Explains concepts and principles. An important function of cooperative learning groups is to ensure that each member under- stands the task to be performed or the concept to be understood. Part of the instructor’s role is to relinquish "control" and to encourage students to be responsible for the learning (Johnson et al., 1988). Comments indicate that students turned to their group for information on assignments, clarification, lecture notes, and so on. Sample comments support these activities: "She usually knows what is going on, so she is very helpful. If we don’t understand an assignment, she will explain to the best of her capability to let us understand also." "If anyone has a question about our homework, all of us try to give our input about how we conceive the assignment.” "I feel that as a group we explain things. We all seem to get different parts of things and then put what we know together for all of us." Only two negative comments were offered: "Most of the time he says he doesn’t understand what is going on." "He does not explain concepts usually. He is absent often and is usually the one asking instead of the one explaining." Additional comments indicated that the groups were working effec- tively in explaining concepts and principles. Expresses support. EXpressing support for group members is important in building a cooperative spirit within the team (Johnson et al., 1988). ‘The interdependence among group members, often in the form of shared grades, made it important that group members felt comfortable included: “He sm he com out wh “She 9 build “He e) us to pate z "The real “She ’Bett spiri "Duri I th1 Studt other and Giyg processor the oppo‘ were ple: members included "Wh wil dor "11 901 “Si sh 94 comfortable with each other--and supported. Representative comments included: "He supports our ideas and our grades. If we get a good grade, he compliments us. If we get a bad grade, he tries to figure out why!" “She gives support throughout any of our assignments and helps build our confidence in our writing skills." "He expresses his support with a sense of security. He wants us to feel secure in the group, so that the group will partici- pate and feel free to work as a team." "The support for the group is there even though there is no real sign. We know we can rely on each other." "She was always quick with words of encouragement. ’Good job,’ ’Better luck next time,’ etc. She helped develop the group spirit.“ ' ”During our final project he said, ’We have three good heads.’ I thought that showed a lot of support for all of us." Students participating in these groups seemed sensitive to each other and regularly offered expressions of support. Gives directions. The roles of 'facilitator, recorder, and processor were rotated within the group each week. Each member had the opportunity to fulfill each role. In general, group members were pleased with the leadership in each group. In some cases the members ”blossomed" with the leadership role. Sample comments included: "When he is the leader, he does a fine job in explaining. He will inform us what should be done and what order to have it done." ”If she is the group leader that day, she will give us very good directions on the subject we are working on." "She does give directions when she is the leader but sometimes she tends to be quiet." Asks f learning grt members (Jo or explain established especially “If h examp drape Other that askin "He i willi “He know ques "[Sh of t aske much Alti tion, the "He thh "We wro In 9V°UP a1 This fer Bi 95 Asks for information. nationala. An effective cooperative learning group is one in which trust has been established among its members (Johnson et al., 1988). Feeling free to ask for information or explain a rationale depends on the degree of trust that has been established by members of the group. Asking for information was especially important for students with English as a second language: "If he had questions, he could come to me for answers. For example, when he didn’t know what a paper shredder was or draperies, I would explain the best I could." Other comments suggesting that trust was being developed and that asking for information or rationale was acceptable included: "He is willing to ask for information about what to do and is willing to use our responses." "He asks for information when he nfisses class. He wants to know what he has missed so he can make it up. Asks a lot of questions." "[She] was quick to ask for assistance; never wanted the work of the group to be decreased by her own work. She, of us all, asked for the most help and assistance. It was never ’too much’ as to cause problems." Although group members felt comfortable in asking for informa- tion, they sometimes were hesitant to use the suggestions: "He. does ask. for information sometimes, but many times he thinks what he’s done is perfect, when it’s not!" "We have had our disagreements on what .we feel "is right or wrong, and as a group we try to ration things ou . In general, students developed a feeling of trust within the group and asked for information and clarification of assigned task. This feeling of trust grew as the term progressed. Paraphrases. Students were asked to comment on others’ ability to paraphrase or restate a problem or task to clarify meaning. Those stude were often "He ha didn’t “1 us explai easy 1 Fewer than any 1 Awart evaluatio each othe “Onl trie but "I t tog "He fee "No are II Sh a l bug “AS bm mm 96 Those students identified as able to explain concepts and principles were often those identified as being able to paraphrase the best. "He had a tendency to give an example if there was something I didn’t understand. It really helped." "I usually understand what she is trying to say if she’s explaining something or pointing out mistakes in my work. It’s easy to understand her." "He helps the group understand things that we don’t understand by giving additional information to let us know what is going on." "Thank God she does! She helps me understand assignments. Sometimes I don’t even have to ask; she must see the confu- sion." Fewer instances of paraphrasing were observed by the students than any other category in this evaluation. Awareness of group members. Several comments appeared in this evaluation that suggested group members were attempting to analyze each other and to understand each other’s behavior. "Only when directly asked would she [explain concepts], but she tried her best when called upon. She seemed intimidated by us but I can’t be sure." "I think she is a shy and subdued person who finds it difficult to get chummy with people she hardly knows." "He is very supportive and asks us what we’re doing to make us feel more together as a group." "None of our participation potentials were reached; all of us are at fault." "She was having problems with her sorority, and I think she was a little preoccupied with breaking up [her boyfriend was always bugging her before class]. "As leader of the group, she did an excellent job of motivating but fell short a few times when expliCit directions or judg- ments needed to be made." Througl other’s per task" provi Summar provided a heterogene1 identified with group general, 1 with each explanatic Cooperati1 Self-eval The evaluatio his/her g POint SC: almost n means an 97 Throughout the quarter, students became more familiar with each other’s personal as well as academic lives. The times spent "off task" provided the opportunity for student interaction and sharing. Summary. The Cooperative Learning Groups Observation Sheet provided a means to evaluate the initial effectiveness of the heterogeneous cooperative learning groups. As problem areas were identified, the instructor intervened by discussing the situation with group members and asking the group to resolve the problem. In general, the groups developed a feeling of trust and cooperation with each other, group members felt free to ask for directions and explanations, and group members encouraged and supported each other. Cooperative Learning Groups Self-evaluation Checklist The second evaluation instrument administered was a self- evaluation of the extent to which a group member cooperated within his/her group. Students were asked to respond to items on a five- point scale: 5 = always, 4 = almost always, 3 = sometimes, 2 = almost never, and l = never. The items and their corresponding means are rank ordered in Table 4.19. Table 4.19. Item / I am intert the group 1 Iinclude our work a I contribu and inform I ask othe ideas and I ask for need it I make su mgmw the writi or projec I help ot of my grc I summari and info I keep t task \ Stu ested 1 discuss for the 98 Table 4.19.--Rank order of items students used to evaluate coopera- tion with the group. (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Almost Almost Item Never Never Sometimes Always Always Mean 1 am interested in the group succeeding --- --- --- 13% 87% 4.7 I include everyone in our work and discussion --- --- 17% 20% 63% 4.5 I contribute my ideas and information --- --- 13% 33% 53% 4.4 I ask others for their ideas and information --- 3% 27% 20% 50% 4.2 I ask for help when I need it -—- --- 23% 30% 47% 4.2 I make sure everyone in my group understands the writing assignment or project --— --- 33% 27% 40% 4.1 I help other members of my group learn --- 3% 30% 40% 27% 3.9 I summarize our ideas and information --— 3% 40% 40% 17% 3.7 I keep the group on task --- --- 37% 47% 17% 3.4 Students rated themselves highest in the areas of being inter- ested in the group succeeding, including everyone in work and discussion, contributing ideas and information, and asking others for their ideas and information. Students rated themselves lowest in areas tl on task, 51 CooperatiVI Evaluation In tI record dai the 29 j01 their grol examples reported 1 Stud Day Day Day Day Stu Day Day Da 99 in areas that required leadership skills, such as keeping the group on task, summarizing ideas, and helping other group members learn. Cooperative Learning Groups Evaluation Sheet In the third evaluation instrument, students were asked to record daily group activities for one week (four class periods). Of the 29 journals reviewed, 28 indicated the growing effectiveness of their group work and increasing skill development. 'The fellowing examples illustrate how three students from different groups reported on the week’s activity. Student A: Day 1: "This group works real well together. We are still a little timid in editing others’ work, but that should improve as we know each other better." Day 2: "Wow, what a difference! Today each member really came out and said if they thought something was wrong. I see improvement every day. Still working well together." Day 3: "I don’t think we could really put our heads together and come up with buffers. We weren’t too assertive on suggestions, but we all have those days." Day 4: "We have some problems coming up with buffers in the indirect letters. The rest of the letter came somewhat easy. Our editing skills are getting better each time." Student B: Day 1: "Wow, what an experience!" Day 2: "It’s semi-working." Day 3: "Things working 0K." Day 4: "Today we finally seemed to click.” Studen Day 1: Day 2 Day 3 Day 1 Only frustrati the part her part. Day Day 100 Student C: Day 1: Day 2: Day 3: Day 4: "We edited individuals’ letters and checked for mis- spelled words. It is effective to work as a group because some misspelled words were unnoticed, but as soon as the group read the letters, they noticed such words and had to be corrected." "Working as a group helps a lot. It helps one to be careful of minor things which are overlooked. It helps one to know how to edit and spell words correctly. By being told to correct something in your letter by the members makes one not forget anymore." "We edited individuals’ letters 'hi the group. There were various kinds of mistakes made by each and every- one of us, so we corrected our papers, each person pointing out what he recognizes as a mistake made by the other members and we unanimously agreed upon the correction." ‘ "Our group worked on an indirect letter, each member of the group coming up with a paragraph suitable to the assigned letter. The buffer was the most difficult paragraph, so we worked together making different sug- gestions until one came up with what we thought was right and hence adopted it." Only one student expressed frustration with her group. This frustration developed because of the lack of leadership skills on the part of the group facilitator and the lack of assertiveness on her part. Day 1: Day 2: "I sat, not saying anything, waiting for the leader to start things going. Nothing was said until I reminded him, Adam [the leader today]. I don’t think he likes the class or writing letters; he mumbles under his breath about what we are supposed to be doing. Bob doesn’t say much. It’s frustrating for me to work in this group. I don’t want to come across as ’knowing it all.’ I really would like to be of help to my group But it is hard for me to be aggressive with these two oys." "Again, today, I waited for the group to get started. I reminded Adam that he had to lead the group. It took a good part of the class time for them to compose their letters so we didn’t get much time to check them over Day 3 Day 4 Alth she did ‘ comments Group W01 The overall tive lea tude t01 student preferr R1 final 101 together. Bob doesn’t say much. Adam mumbles about not knowing what we are supposed to do, and I get frus— trated and don’t care to say much." Day 3: "Group went O.K. Adam was absent. Bob led and we discussed our assignment." Day 4: "Adam was present but said he didn’t know much about the inductive approach so he didn’t say much. Bob and I went over the assignments. Then we wrote our class assignment. But things always move very slow in our group, which frustrated me. I don’t like to have to remind the leader it is his turn to lead. It’s hard for me to be aggressive with my group members to keep things going." Although the frustration for this student never disappeared, she did receive satisfaction from the group members’ appreciative comments about her contribution to the group. Group Work Evaluation The final evaluation instrument was designed to provide an overall measure of the effectiveness of the heterogeneous coopera- tive learning groups. Students generally expressed a positive atti- tude toward learning to write business letters through groups. Two students recognized the need to be able to work in groups but preferred to work individually. Representative comments are provided for each question on the final evaluation: 1. In what ways do you feel grOUp work helped improve your writing? "I think that it made me more confident about myself and my writing skills. I finally figured out how to use commas and semicolons. The people I worked with made it easier to write." "[Groups] helped me be more self-critical of my own writing style. Several times I would put down words and phrases that my group members would not understand. After a while I would which "Work‘ point: assig “Grou ent i “Crit “Havi criti take: “Gro how much worl "Gro ther bers didi . In wl MA wan tud lea ll Gr or hel HG] prr "S id "C II( It t1 n t 102 would begin to write in a clear and concise manner in which I could easily be understood." “Working in groups was a benefit because there were different points of view presented. To get a better understanding of an assignment, one can freely ask others in the group." "Group work improved my writing because at times I had differ- ent input and I had to pick between which one was better." "Criticism, pat on the back." "Having other people read my writing and give constructive criticism allowed me to see where I was making most of my mis- takes; I was then able to correct them." "Group work has helped me to a great extent. When you learn how to work in groups, you get a better understanding of how much you have to work as a team to succeed in the business world." "Group work helped improve my writing in such a way that when there was [sic] mistakes as to the content or grammar the mem- bers helped me see what was wrong with it, and if I still didn’t understand then they kept at it till I did." 2. In what ways do you feel group work is ineffective? "A group is ineffective if one or more members do not really want to work as a group. Everyone has to have the proper atti- tude to work in a group if they want to be effective and really learn from it." "GrOUp work may be ineffective when not all members participate or go to cJass, because you are dependent upon that person’s help." "Group work is ineffective if one of the group members is not prepared for the class. [Didn’t do homework.]" "Sometimes one of the members will get into a conflict when ideas weren’t liked." "Closed minds." "Group work is ineffective when the members are not in the same level of understanding and when they are reserved people; e.g., those members who are having problems in doing assigned work never comment on other team members’ work because they think they are correct. The same thing applies when somebody is resert the 9 3. Do you (Note: unfair “I do becau work. "Yes. a fa‘ wasr “Yes you pose part 103 reserved; he/she prefers to talk little and it does not help the group.” 3. Do you think the instructor’s group grading practices are fair? (Note: None of the responding students thought the grading was unfair.) "I do think it’s fair for the instructor to grade as a group, because it makes every person put out more effort on their work." "Yes. The system you set Up was mathematically sound. It gave a fair shake to everyone. Sometimes it irked me but overall it was good." "Yes, because it is not as easy to let things go as much when you know that someone else’s grade depends on you and the pur- pose was to work in groups and that means getting everyone to participate." 4. Would you rather work in groups or individually? (Note: 68% = groups; 21% = both groups and individually; 10% = individually only.) "Sometimes I would rather work in groups and sometimes I would rather work individually. I think it just depends on what kind of an assignment you are doing. Most of the time I would like to work by myself because I have a hard time talking to people I don’t know." "I, personally, would rather work in groups. In groups you have different minds to work with. All of you have a different idea and that can make a good outcome." "Despite all the problems groups may cause, I know I’ve learned so much more than I would have if I would have had to write individually." "When working in a group will put synergism into action, then I’d rather work in a group. But when the group is holding me down rather than boosting me up I’d rather go solo." "Groups because then I don’t have to do all the thinking." "I prefer to work individually because it helps me to be inde- pendent instead of relying on the group members who might give me wrong advice since they both agreed upon it and I myself will be inclined to accept.“ "I we get a there 5. What h “Ever equal to hz might the g “I d more “It all “Tha ful "It Some cisn llIt‘ thm doe jud "Th to out Response Stl groups lmporta resDons necessa lot of 104 "I would rather work in groups. When you work in groups, you get a better understanding of how a group functions. However, there are some things that you have to work on individually." 5. What have you learned about working as a team? "Everyone should always be involved, and try to participate as equally as everyone else does. It has its advantages; you have to have more than just one person’s opinion, the other people might have good suggestions, they might talk more to help bring the group together." "I don’t talk that much, but it made me communicate my ideas more." "It really is work and there has to be 100% cooperation from all members to be effective." "That constructive criticism is O.K. and that it is very help- ful when used effectively." "It takes a lot of hard work . . . and a lot of patience. Sometimes it is not easy to give and take constructive criti- cism. I found it an enjoyable experience." "It’s a lot of give and take and so much more understanding than I have ever been used to. I’ve learned that if a person doesn’t do their job, there may be a reason so try not to pass judgment too soon." "That you can’t always have everything your own way. You have to be able to listen to your group members and help one another out." Response to Research Question Students’ comments were favorable toward cooperative learning groups in the learning of business writing. They recognized the importance of being able to work as a member of a team and to be responsible for the outcome. The realizations that involvement is necessary for a group to be successful, that working as a team has a lot of give and take, that there are times to work independently and times to \ beneficial The 1 coefficier able adde this find concern 1 achieveme Merdat tory seen Six in Group with mat trend. Signifir anxiety The and ach‘ alistic This f1 that ge 105 times to work in groups, and that constructive criticism can be beneficial were all expressed by group members. Further EXploration of Data The prediction equation for achievement included a negative coefficient for Value of Group. Although the addition of this vari- able added only 3% to the prediction equation, the implications of this finding led to further exploration of the data. Of major concern was the negative relationship between a measurement of achievement and attitudes toward group work. Further inspection of the relationship between ability measures and the group work inven- tory seemed appropriate. Six of the eight correlations between ability and Involvement in Group were negative (Table 4.20). Curiously, the correlation with mathematics represents a reversal in the otherwise dominant trend. Seven of the eight correlations in Anxiety Toward Group were significantly correlated with ability, suggesting that higher anxiety toward group is related to higher achievement. The negative correlations between attitudes toward group work and achievement support the belief that schools encourage individu- alistic and competitive learning more than cooperative learning. This finding provides empirical evidence of the major assumption that generated this study. Table 4.20. Measure AC1 English Mathematic Social Sci Natural Sc Composite High Scho English 1 Prewritin ‘ *Sig The in the tr was eval the trea SOn betw covariat H11 test da Writing .010). 106 Table 4.20.--Correlation coefficients for pretest group attitude variables and measures of ability for both groups. Involvement Value of Anxiety Measure N In Group Group Toward Group _Cl English 103 -.2426* .0321 .3084* Mathematics 103 .2387* -.0980 .3583* Social Science 103 -.2102* .0399 .2770* Natural Science 103 -.1724* .0824 .1907* Composite 103 -.2687* .0107 .3495* High School GPA 119 -.1472 .0282 .2041* English 112 119 .0086 .1626* .0448 Prewriting 119 -.1744* -.0383 .2438* ' *Significant at the .05 level. Summary The effectiveness of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups in the teaching of business communication at the postsecondary level was evaluated in Chapter IV. Pretreatment analysis revealed that the treatment and control groups were similar; therefore, a compari- son between instructional treatments could be investigated without covariates. Hypothesis 1 was rejected after the results of MANOVA on post- test data indicated a significant difference in attitudes toward writing and group work between the treatment and control groups (p = .010). Hypotl analysis 0 nificance the contro ment in bu Hypot multiple ‘ ment: Prl Hypo ness of learning attitudes The teaching effectiv 107 Hypothesis 2 was not rejected after the results of the t-test analysis of a final business letter indicated no statistical sig- nificance between the two groups (p = .945). Both the treatment and the control groups, however, did make significant gains in achieve- ment in business writing. Hypothesis 3 was rejected after the results of a step-wise multiple regression provided three predictors of writing achieve- ment: Prewriting, ACT English, and Value of Group. Hypothesis 4 provided qualitative information on the effective- ness of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups. Cooperative learning groups were especially effective in improving students’ attitudes toward writing and group work. The use of heterogeneous copperative learning groups in the teaching of business communication at the postsecondary level is an effective alternative teaching strategy. This heteroger business consisted II offere sitv. 11 Both grot Communice istratio1 Four 1. lng grou in atti Writing 2. ing gro in achi measure CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary This study was designed to investigate the effectiveness of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups in the teaching of business communication at the postsecondary level. The sample consisted of students from four sections of Business Communication 11 offered during winter quarter, 1988-1989, at Ferris State Univer— sity. The sample was organized into control and treatment groups. Both groups were guided by the goals and objectives for Business Communication 11 as established by the faculty in the Office Admin- istration Program at Ferris State University. Four research questions were examined in this study: 1. 00 students who experience heterogeneous cooperative learn- ing groups differ from those who experience traditional instruction in attitudes toward writing and group work as assessed by the Writing Attitude Inventory and the Group Work Attitude Inventory? 2. 00 students who experience heterogeneous cooperative learn- ing groups differ from those who experience traditional instruction in achievement in business writing skill as assessed by a post- measure of business letter writing? 108 3. 1: ing assign 112 or equ assignment work)? 4. I ing grou evaluatio Literatur The cooperat educatio reviewed A 1 reviewed a combh and/or 1 0r COOpt Th investi Signifi in att Studies D Which 109 3. Is business writing skill, as measured by a posttest writ- ing assignment, related to pre-course ability (ACT scores, English 112 or equivalent, high school grade point average, pretest writing assignment) and pre-course attitudes (toward writing and group work)? 4. Do students who experience heterogeneous cooperative learn— ing groups report, through written comments, favorable final evaluations? Literature The literature reviewed focused on the use of peer groups and cooperative learning groups in .secondary and postsecondary education. Group composition and grading methods were also reviewed. A pretest-posttest design was used in 17 of the studies reviewed; field research methods were incorporated into two studies; a combination of English grades, overall GPA, sex, class level, and/or test scores were used to determine the effectiveness of peer or cooperative learning groups in three studies. The findings of these studies varied. Of the 22 studies investigating gains in achievement, five found that gain to be significant at the .05 level. 0f the 13 studies investigating gains in attitude, three studies indicated a significant gain. Most studies indicated a gain, but not at a significant level. Two meta-analyses on heterogeneous grouping were reviewed, which represented 148 studies. The meta-analyses on heterogeneous grouping i‘ in achieve traditiona attitudes Methodoloc The 1 four sec Universit consisted discussio students groups. similar The pretesti ACT scor writing Attitud adminis Th adminis were 11 Inventr 01 which Effect 110 grouping indicated that while there can be significant differences in achievement between students in cooperative learning groups and‘ traditional classrooms, the greatest improvement occurs in the attitudes and interpersonal skills of students. Methodology The sample for this study consisted of 119 students enrolled in four sections of Business Communication 11 at Ferris State University during winter quarter, 1988-1989. The control group consisted of 89 students who received the traditional lecture- discussion method of teaching. The treatment group consisted of 30 students who participated in heterogeneous cooperative learning groups. Pretreatment analysis indicated that the two groups were similar in composition and pretest measurements. The basic design was a nonequivalent control group design with pretesting and posttesting. The pretest ability measures included ACT scores, English 112 or equivalent, high school GPA, and pretest writing assignment. The pretest attitude measures were the Writing Attitude Inventory and the Group Work Attitude Inventory administered the first week of class. The posttest ability measure was a final writing assignment administered the last week of class. The posttest attitude measures were the Writing Attitude Inventory and the Group Work Attitude Inventory. Qualitative data were gathered through four instruments in which students evaluated their contributions to group work and the effectiveness of their groups. _p§aa difference toward wri alpha leve Base; the posttt level was 2:1 ESE determine achieveme tion of t Rg_y wflunh weakness Results Bap differer control 2.58987 reiecte toward geneou instruc Re the WT 111 Research Question I. MANOVA was used to test for significant differences between the treatment and control groups in attitudes toward writing and group work as measured by the posttest. The .05 alpha level was used. Res._eaxch Question 2. A t-test was used to determine whether the posttest means for writing achievement differed. The .05 alpha level was used. Research Question 3. Step-wise multiple regression was used to determine the relative influence of the pretest measures on final achievement. The .05 alpha level was used to assess the contribu— tion of the predictors. Research Question 4. The students’ periodic and final course evaluations were analyzed to identify the perceived strengths and weaknesses of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups. Ms. Research Question I. The first research question concerned the differences in attitudes toward writing and group work between the control and treatment groups. Wilks’ lambda had an F-value of 2.58987 and a probability of 0.010; therefore, Hypothesis 1 was rejected. There was a significant difference between the attitudes toward writing and group work of students participating in hetero- geneous cooperative learning group instruction and traditional instruction. Research Question 2. The second research question concerned the writing achievement gain between the control and treatment groups. therefore, in busines: geneous c1 instructio Ragga relationsi between ti pre-cours significa Three var Prewritin 3 was re achieveme Bag by analy their gr cooperat toward Writing. is a me1 Ba drawn: 112 groups. Statistical significance was not present (p = .945); therefore, Hypothesis 2 was not rejected. There was no difference in business writing achievement of students participating in hetero- geneous copperative learning group instruction and traditional instruction. Research Question 3. The third research question concerned the relationship of pre-course ability to achievement. The relationship between the final writing assignment grade to pre—course ability and pre-course attitude measures reached .62650. The .05 alpha level of significance was used to assess the contribution of the predictors. Three variables were found to predict 39.3% of writing achievement: Prewriting, ACT English, and Value of Group. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was rejected. There was a relationship between posttest writing achievement and pre—course ability and pre-course attitudes. Research Question 4. The fourth research question was answered by analyzing qualitative data gathered from students’ evaluations of their group participation and the perceived effectiveness of their cooperative learning groups. Students’ comments were favorable toward cooperative learning groups in the learning of business writing. Students recognized the importance of being able to work as a member of a team and to be responsible for the outcome. Conclusions Based on the reported findings, the following conclusions were drawn: 1, TI teaching 0' effective gnnsin a from stud statement. 2. cooperati experienc The gain control 1 The char learning 3. heteroge than th discuss Percept possibl instruc were 51 learni Opport that u Studm Perce; 113 1. The use of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups in the teaching of business communication at the postsecondary level was an effective alternative teaching strategy as evidenced by positive gains in attitude and achievement for the treatment group. Feedback from student evaluations and teacher observation supported this statement. 2. The achievement of students participating in heterogeneous cooperative learning groups was equal to the achievement of students experiencing the traditional lecture-discussion method of teaching. The gain was slightly higher for the treatment group (+6.0) than the control group (+5.8); however, it was not at a significant level. The change in instructional strategy did not negatively affect learning outcome. 3. Certain attitude measures of students who participated in heterogeneous cooperative learning groups were significantly higher than those of students who experienced the traditional lecture- discussion method of teaching. The significant variables were Perception of the Writing Teacher and Involvement in Group. It is possible that the attributes and attitudes of each of the three instructors involved in this study and the time of day those classes were scheduled may have affected the results. Using the cooperative learning group structure provided the instructor with the opportunity to interact with small groups of students in a manner that usually does not occur in a typical classroom situation. This student-teacher interaction may have developed more positive perceptions of the writing teacher. The small-group structure encouraged periods. being a f worked on opinions, more invol 4. 1 assignmen Groups, m ness writ tion cont designing riate te: could he within 1 groups c have dii assistar 5. other m The str assignm student Communi Additir 114 encouraged students to be participants and discussants during class periods. In addition, each group member had the responsibility for being a facilitator, a recorder, and a processor while the group worked on assigned projects. Thus, sharing ideas, exchanging opinions, and serving in various roles enabled students to become more involved in their group work. 4. Combined pre-course measures, such as a pretest writing assignment, ACT English score, and attitude toward the Value of Groups, may be used as a means for predicting achievement in busi- ness writing or for course sectioning. The availability of informa- tion concerning students and their abilities can assist faculty in designing meaningful course goals and objectives, as well as approp- riate teaching strategies. Pre-course writing samples, for example, could help the instructor focus on areas needing special attention within the class. Organizing heterogeneous cooperative learning groups could be particularly beneficial for students who generally have difficulty interacting with other students or who need special assistance. 5. The prerequisite, English 112, was not as effective as other measures in predicting success in Business Communication 11. The strongest predictor of writing achievement was a pretest writing assignment. A better' method for’ determining whether or not a student has the necessary background for enrollment in Business Communication 11 may be to have a pre-course writing assessment in addition to the current prerequisite of English 112. 6. I to struct "control" not detri heightene oped a 5: comments direction Although situatior time was class m activiti 7. view reg coeffici negative academi do bett than g educati OverUSe learnii Possih Americ with g 115 6. In a cooperative learning situation, the teacher’s role is to structure learning situations cooperatively and to relinquish "control" to the students. The loss of this teacher "control" was not detrimental to student achievement and was associated with heightened perception of the teacher. In addition, students devel- pped a sense of responsibility for their own learning. Students’ comments indicated that they accepted the responsibility for giving directions, providing guidance, and editing each other’s work. Although some conflicts did occur, the students resolved these situations as a group. The students decided whether or not extra time was needed to complete projects and scheduled their own out-of- class meetings. They "controlled" the irr- and out-of—class activities necessary to complete the task. 7. The Value of Group scale was designed to assess a student’s view regarding the usefulness of group work activity. The negative coefficients for Value of Group in the prediction equation and the negative relationship between group work attitudes and measures of academic ability imply that students who value group work the least do better in writing. The emphasis on individual achievement rather than group achievement is prevalent throughout the American educational system. Educational researchers have identified the overuse and inappropriate use of individualistic and competitive learning in American schools (Johnson et al., 1988). It may be possible that the individualistic and competitive environment in the American educational system has cultivated this negative association with group activity and responsibility. Although it is important that one b that emplo possess cc to enhance ment. 8.! students energy" w with vary share in focused ( The educatio 1. Ferris 5 tion se Nth. 2. tionshi achieve rated 1 recomme ently ; 116 that one be able to work independently, the literature has suggested that employers want people who can work as members of a team and who possess cooperative skills. Educators should explore ways in which to enhance cooperative learning skills and improve academic achieve- ment. 8. Cooperative learning groups provided an opportunity for students to work with one another in a way that created a "positive energy" within the classroom. The instructor observed men and women with varying abilities working together to accomplish a task and to share in the rewards. The classroom environment was lively and focused on accomplishing tasks by group members working together. Recommendations The following recommendations concern further research and educational practices. 1. This study should be replicated with other samples at Ferris State University and within a variety of other higher educa- tion settings to determine whether similar or different findings result. 2. Additional research is needed to explore the negative rela- tionship between measures of group work attitude and academic achievement. A continued review of the teaching strategies incorpo- rated into elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education is recommended to see if educators cultivate students to work independ- ently at the exclusion of working in groups. 3. Business more effe 4. provide Additiona the item 5. porated Office A1 Students their co 6. studied Students classro Student: heterog With mo Th hetero bUSlnes filtern; a”d tm 117 3. The practice of using English 112 as a prerequisite to Business Communication 11 should be investigated to determine if more effective pre-course requirements are available. 4. The Group Work Attitude Inventory should be expanded to provide a comprehensive, effective assessment of ‘the attribute. Additional research should be conducted using group work items in the item shell theory proposed by Haladyna et al. (1987). 5. Heterogeneous cooperative learning groups should be incor- porated into the classroom setting by other instructors within the Office Administration Program in order to compare results and ideas. Students could benefit by having multiple opportunities to develop their cooperative skills within the educational setting. 6. Students’ attitudes toward writing and group work should be studied further as a means of course sectioning and/or placement. Students identified as having negative attitudes could be placed in classrooms using heterogeneous cooperative learning groups. Students identified as having lower abilities could be placed in heterogeneous groups where the opportunity exists for interaction with more able students. Spmmary of Studv This writer’s intention was to evaluate the effectiveness of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups in the teaching of business communication at the postsecondary level. The use of this alternative teaching strategy was supported by the data collected and the evaluative comments from students. The 1 teaching 1 effective. tional fm Comments classroom typical ' Ferris S themselve 1989). students learning Obs ing stra activiti the com; become 1 satisfa excelle but lat the pr indivi AChieV1 I Studen 118 Reflections The use of heterogeneous cooperative learning groups in the teaching of business communication at the postsecondary level was effective. At first, students approached this change in instruc- tional format cautiously, but soon they became active participants. Comments from ‘the students emphasized 'their' satisfaction with a classroom environment organized around participation rather than the typical lecture-and-sometimes-discussion format. Recent data on Ferris State University freshmen revealed that they perceived themselves to be above average in sociability (Kowalkoski & Swartz, 1989). The use of cooperative learning groups capitalized on the students’ social skills and used these social skills to assist learning. Observations confirmed the students’ acceptance of this learn- ing strategy as they were involved in discussion and decision-making activities. The classroom was "lively" as students were involved in the completion of their tasks. Some students labeled as "shy" did become more assertive; some students labeled as "nonleaders" did a satisfactory job in facilitating their groups; some students with excellent high school GPAs struggled at first in the group setting but later became group participants. The last observation supported the premise that students’ pre-college experiences were based on individualistic and competitive success, rather 'than group achievement. Increasing references to "our," "we," and "us" were heard in student conversations. Absenteeism was not a problem. Intolerance of class a for all me The students 1 these gro thoughts making ab previousl in their The and to r able. environm ing the learned classroc In tOgethe and prt Student ingmu 119 of class absences seemed to build as students realized the necessity for all members to be present in order to complete a project. The cooperative learning groups were effective in providing students with feedback and suggestions for revision. In addition, these groups gave students the opportunity to "externalize" their thoughts and to devel0p their critical-thinking skills and decision- making abilities. Occasionally students could be heard integrating previously learned information and sharing personal work experiences in their group discussions. The teacher had to learn to give up "control" of the classroom and to reSpond to various situations that were not always predict- able. The teacher’s role became one of managing the classroom environment, monitoring and intervening when necessary, and evaluat- ing the process. The teacher was involved with the students and learned more about the "total" student than would be possible in a classroom where lecturing was the main method of presentation. In the final analysis, cooperative learning groups brought together the academic, personal, and social skills of each student and provided an avenue for sharing in the learning process. Students did learn to write business documents and did learn to work in groups. Indeed, "three heads" were better than one. APPENDICES APPENDIX A CONSENT FORM Eaeteaat Thi to inves in the t Universi determin between students sections this res Attitude records. retainec quarter. To: writing your res will ta the qua} busines Y01 Partici Your gr Rose An data ga Swartz maintai Buildin Eeaeen: I investi the tea Procedt VOIunt; 1 any th I Confim 10 me 120 CONSENT FORM WRITING ATTITUDES INVENTORY AND STUDENT RECORDS Eselaoatieo e: Bsssacsb= This survey is being conducted as part of a doctoral study to investigate the effectiveness of cooperative learning groups in the teaching of Business Communication 11 at Ferris State University. The purpose of this segment of the study is to determine whether there are significant differences in attitudes between students participating in cooperative learning groups and students in traditional classroom settings. Students in four sections of 0A 810 will be asked to participate voluntarily in this research. Students will be asked to complete the writing Attitude Survey and to give permission for access to student records. All information will remain confidential and will be retained in the FSU Testing Office until after the end of winter quarter. Today you will be asked to read 48 statements relating to writing, decide how you feel about the statements, and record your responses on a machine-scanned answer sheet. The survey will take approximately 20 minutes to complete. At the end of the quarter, student records will be used to determine if business writing skill is related to pro-course ability. You are free not to participate at all or to withdraw your participation from the study at any time without recrimination. Your grade will not be affected by your decision. Professor Rose Ann Swartz will be the investigator for this study. The data gathered during winter quarter will not be seen by Professor Swartz until after the end of the term. All data will be maintained by the Testing Technician, Testing Office, Prakken Building, Ferris State University. Consent to EsctisiesEs= I have been informed that this study is being.conducted to investigate the effectiveness of cooperative learning groups in the teaching of Business Communication. The purposes and procedures of the study have been explained to me, and I voluntarily agree to participate in the research. I understand that I am free to withdraw my participation at any time without recrimination. I understand all information will remain completely confidential and that the results of the study will be available to me upon request. Name (please print) _________________________ Signature _________________________ APPENDIX B WRITING ATTITUDE INVENTORY Dizssliens writing. it descrit number of the spacew If y spa: If y If v If y spat Use a No statemen do not w Be sure to compl answer a present 1. wri 2. Ur: S. I 121 WRITING ATTITUDE INVENTORY gigggtiggg: The following statements are about the study of writing. Please read each statement carefully and decide whether it describes the way ygu feel about writing. Then, find the number of the statement on the answer sheet, and blacken one of the spaces according to the following directions: If you strongly agggg with the statement, blacken space 1. If you aggge with the statement, blacken space 2. If you gigagteg with the statement, blacken space 3. If you gtggggly disaggge with the statement, blacken space 4. Use a No. 2 pencil. Be sure to blacken only gag space for each statement. Mark your answers ggly on the answer sheet. Please do not write on this form. He sure to answer every question. You will have about 20 minutes to complete the 48 statements of the inventory. Remember to answer each statement according to the way ygg feel at the present time. 1. Writing is useful for the problems of everyday life. 2. writing is something which I enjoy very much. 3. I like the easy writing assignments best. 4. I don‘t do very well in writing. 5. My writing teacher shows little interest in the students. 6. Doing writing assignments is fun. 7. I feel at ease in a writing class. 8. I would like to write outside of school. 9. There is little need for writing in most jobs. 10. writing is easy for me. 11. when I hear the word "writing," I have a feeling of dislike. 18. Most people should have some writing classes. 13. I would like to write less in school. (writing 14. I re 15. Writ 16. I us clas 122 (Writing Attitude Inventory) 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 80. 21. ea. 23. 24. 86. 87. 88. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. I read other writers' work to improve my writing. Writing is helpful in understanding today's world. I usually understand what we are talking about in writing class. My writing teacher makes writing interesting. I don't like anything about writing. No matter how hard I try, I cannot learn to write well. I feel tense when someone talks to me about writing. My writing teacher presents material in a clear way. I often think, "I can't do it," when a writing assignment seems hard. Writing is of great importance to a country's development. It is important to know how to write in order to get a good job. It doesn't disturb me to do writing assignments. I would like a job where I won‘t have to write. My writing teacher knows when we are having trouble with our work. I enjoy talking to other people about writing. I like to play games that use words. I am good at doing writing assignments. My writing teacher doesn't seem to enjoy teaching writing. Sometimes I do more writing than is assigned in class. You can get along perfectly well in everyday life without writing. ‘ Working with words upsets me. I remember most of the things I learn in writing class. It makes me nervous to even think about writing. (writing 9‘ I wou rathe Most It 5: My HI I ta It i writ I ha My v Hr? 123 (Writing Attitude Inventory) 37. 46. 47. 48. I would rather have someone tell me how to write something rather than have to figure it out for myself. Most of what I learned about writing isn't very useful. It scares me to have to take writing class. My writing teacher is willing to give us individual help. I take writing classes only because I have to. It is important to me to understand the work I do in writing class. I have a good feeling about writing. My writing teacher knows a lot about writing. Writing is more of a game than it is hard work. My writing teacher doesn't like students to ask questions. I have a real desire to learn to write. If I don't see how to do a writing assignment right away, never get it. I APPENDIX C GROUP WORK ATTITUDE INVENTORY 91:22:19 Please r describe the hunt of the 2 If sm Use a N stateme not wri Be sure to com; answer presen 1. HI 2. D 124 GROUP WORK ATTITUDE INVENTORY Qigggtiggg: The following statements are about group work. Please read each statement carefully and decide whether it describes the way xgg feel about working in groups. Then, find the number of the statement on the answer sheet, and blacken one of the spaces according to the following directions: If you stggggly aggge with the statement, blacken space 1. If you aggeg with the statement, blacken space 2. If you gisaggge with the statement, blacken space 3. If you strongly gisaggee with the statement, blacken space 4. Use a No. 3 pencil. Be sure to blacken only gag space for each statement. Mark your answers gflly on the answer sheet. Please do not write on this form. Be sure to answer every question. You will have about 5 minutes to complete the 12 statements of the inventory. Remember to answer each statement according to the way ygg feel at the present time. 1. Working in groups is something which I enjoy very much. 2. Doing group assignments is fun. 3. Group leaders make teamwork interesting. 4. No matter how hard I try, I cannot learn to work well in groups. ‘ Teamwork is of great importance to success in business. a. It is important to know how to work in teams in order to get a good job. 7. It doesn’t disturb me to participate in group assignments. B. I am good at doing teamwork assignments. 9. It scares me to work in groups. 10. Team members are willing to give me individual help. 11. I do group projects only because I have to. 18. I have a real desire to learn to work in groups. APPENDIX D PRE- AND POSTTEST WRITING ASSIGNMENT You are t Rapids. to enroll students for a B, reimburse completed reimburse explains block sty NOTE: Pl ic of *Adapted 125 WRITING ASSIGNMENT* You are the personnel director for ABC Products, Inc. in Big Rapids. For certain types of training, you encourage employees to enroll in night classes at Ferris State University. For students who earn an A, the firm pays 100 percent of the tuition; for a B, 75 percent,; for a C, 50 percent. For lower grades, no reimbursement is allowed. One of your employees, Bill White, has completed a course and written a letter requesting full reimbursement. His grade was a C. Write a letter to Bill that explains and refuses. Supply needed addresses; use modified block style with mixed punctuation. . NOTE: Please do not sign your name. Write your student identification number in the upper right-hand corner of the letterhead provided. *Adapted from Himstreet and Baty (I984). 126 Student No. A B C P R O D U C T S, I N C. 109 Hampton Avenue Big Rapids, MI 49307 (616) 796-5555 APPENDIX E 0A 210 EVALUATION FORM Rater's l. TAE Respons II. a Buffer Detail Decisi Close Tone Ward C III. No Dat No Ins N0 Sit No/In No Ti Incur Spell and F 127 DA 210 EVALUATION FORM Rater's Initials: _________ Student ID: _____________________ Code: _____________________ I. TASK Response to Situation —2 -1 -0 II. GENERAL MERIT Buffer -2 -1 -0 Details -2 -1 -0 Decision -2 —1 -0 Close -3 -1 -0 Tone -3 -1 -0 Word Choice -2 -l -0 III. FORMAT No Date -1 —O No Inside Address -1 -O No Signature Block -1 -O No/Incorrect Paragraphing -1 -0 No Title in Inside Address -I -O Incorrect Letter/Punctuation Style -1 -0 IV. MECHANICS Spelling, Grammar, -5 -4 -3 -2 —1 -O and Punctuation 25 POINTS - TOTAL DEDUCTIONS = TOTAL SCORE: _______ 1, TASK Overall, di satisfaci Maxim II. ARRAN Did the st respondi Was the I (Confic Was the I (No tr: Ded Max 111. FE Did the date, Did the De Ma IV. ME Did the D D 128 GUIDELINES FOR USING RATING SCALE FOR DA 210 BUSINESS LETTER (25 Total Points) I. TASK Overall, did the student address the situation and prepare a satisfactory, concise reply? Maximum number of points to be deducted = 2. II. ARRANGEMENT , Did the student follow the recommended sequence of ideas for responding inductively? 1. BUFFER: Pleasant, nonargumentative beginning 8. DETAILS: States reasons before refusal 3. DECISION: Refuses request 4. CLOSE: Pleasant, positive ending Deduct two points for each section omitted or out of order. Deduct one point for each section that is unclear. Was the TONE positive? (Confident, courteous, reader-centered, natural, friendly, sincere.) Was the WORD CHOICE clear and professional? (No trite expressions, jargon, redundancies, sexist langugage, etc.) Deduct one or two points depending on the situation. Maximum number of points to be deducted = 12. III. FORMAT Did the student include the necessary parts of a business letter—— date, inside address, signature block, paragraphs, titles? Did the student use modified block style with mixed punctuation? Deduct one point for each error. Maximum number of points to be deducted = 6. IV. MECHANICAL ASPECTS Did the student use correct spelling, grammar, and punctuation? Deduct one point for each error in spelling. Deduct one point for each major error in grammar and punctuation; i.e., comma splice, run-on sentence, misplaced modifiers, fragments, subject/verb agreement, pronoun reference. Maximum number of points to be deducted = 5. APPENDIX E COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS OBSERVATION SHEET Student 0b? Observe tht illustrati Encourages Explains 1 Expresses Asks f0, Paraphr *Adapte 129 COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS OBSERVATION SHEET* Student Observed Week Observe the interaction of each member of your group; cite examples illustrating these actions. Encourages others to participate: Explains concepts and principles: Expresses support: -—_———---———-_-———--—-—---—-—_--- Gives directions: Asks for information, rationale: Paraphrases: *Adapted from Johnson et a1. (1988). APPENDIX G COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS SELF-EVALUATION CHECKLIST Name ___. Please in placing a H.393" MIST? 813.39%" 815.5;- 130 COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS SELF-EVALUATION CHECKLIST Name Group Please indicate how you feel you cooperate in your group by placing an (X) on the corresponding scale. I contribute my ideas and information. Always Sometimes I ask others for their ideas and information. Always Sometimes I summarize our ideas and information. Always Sometimes I ask for help when I need it. Always Sometimes I help other members of my group learn. Always Sometimes I include everyone in our work and discussion. Always Sometimes I am interested in the group succeeding. Always Sometimes I make sure everyone in my group understands the writing assignment or project. *Adapted from Johnson et a1. (1988). APPENDIX H COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS EVALUATION SHEET 131 COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS EVALUATION SHEET I Name ______________________________ GVOUD _______________ Week ____________________ DAY 1: My Role: w_- leader _“w participant ‘_~ absent Activity: ~————.—-——-u———.————u——————~———.———_——-—~———.—-—~~—. Comments/Observations: DAY E: My Role: leader _flm participant “__ absent Activity: ________________________________________ Comments/Observations: 132 DAY 3: My Role: ___ leader ___ participant absent Activity: ____________________________________ Comments/Observations: DAY 4: My Role: w~_ leader a-“ participant fi_w absent Activity: ___________________________________ Comments/Observations: APPENDIX I DA 210 GROUP WORK EVALUATION 133 0A 210 - GROUPWORK EVALUATION In what ways do you feel groupwork helped improve your writing? Please cite specific examples. In what ways do you feel groupwork is ineffective? Please cite specific examples. Do you think the instructor’s group grading practices are Please explain. Would you rather work in groups or individually? Please explain. What have you learned about working as a team? fair? BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, E. (1986). Joint authorship: A pedagogical methodology to increase awareness of audience (Doctoral dissertation, University of Louisville, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts Interggtional, fifi, 2213A-2214A. Adult Literacy Task Force. (l988). Countdown 2000: Michigan’s gction plan for a competitive workforce. Lansing: Author. American College Testing. (1988). ACT assessmentgproqrgm,techniggl manual. Iowa City: Author. Baldwin, E. C. (l986). Student choice among large group, small group, and individual learning environments in a community college mathematics mini-course (Doctoral dissertation, Univer- sity of Maryland, l986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 2065A. Beaman, A. L., Diener, E., Fraser, S. C., & Endresen, K. (1977). Effects of voluntary and semivoluntary peer-monitoring programs on academic performance. Journal of EduggtjonglfiPsxcholQQY, 62, 109-114. Benesch, S. E. (1986). Peer group talk about early drafts: A case study of three freshmen writers (Doctoral dissertation, New York University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts Interngtiongl, 46, 3634A. Boss, R. (1987). Peer group critiques in formative evaluation of college composition (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, 1986). Dissertgtion Abstrgcts Internatiopgl, 31, 2434A. Bowman, J. P., & Branchaw, B. P. (l988). Are we teaching communi- cation skills for the next decade? Business Education Forum, 52, 17-18. Brostrom, G. C. (1988). The importance of communication skills in the business world. In J. C. Scott (Ed.), Egcilitating commg; niggtion for business (pp. l—lO). Reston, VA: National Busi- ness Education Association. 134 135 Bruffee, K. A. (l984). Collaborative learning and the "conversa- tion of mankind." College English, aa, 635-652. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (l963). Experimental and quasi- gxoerimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Carpenter, J. K. (l987). The effects of competitive and coopera— tive learning environments on student achievement and attitudes in college fencing classes (Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, l986). Dissertation Abstracts Interna- tional, 51, 3353A. Chongapiratanakul, B. (l986). An exploratory investigation of cooperative quality circle techniques in facilitating immediate and delayed retention (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41, 67A. Clinton, L. T. (l984). The effectiveness of two methods of teach- ing sociology in facilitating students’ rational thinking about racial and ethnic groups (Doctoral dissertation, East Texas State University, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 3282A. Cohen, E. G. (l972). Designingcgrouowork. New York: Teachers College Press. Daughenbaugh, B. J. (l986). Adult college students’ preferences for teaching styles (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York at Buffalo, l985). Dissertation Abstracts Interna— tional, 5a, 3567A. David, D. L. D. (l986). An ethnographic investigation of talk in small group writing workshops in a college writing class (Doctoral dissertation, State University of New York, l986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 2061A. Davis, A. E. (l985). The effects of ability, sex and task diffi- culty levels on problem solving performance (Doctoral disserta- tion, Howard University, l984). Dissertation Abstracts International, ca, 231lA. DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S. N. (l988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58, ll9-l49. Earls, T. D. (1983). Peer evaluation and teacher evaluation of the first drafts of high school sophomores’ compositions (Doctoral dissertation, Boston University School of Education, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts Internacional, as, l4l0A-l4llA. 136 Emley, N. P. (l987). The effectiveness of cooperative learning versus individualized instruction in a college level remedial mathematics course, with relation to attitudes toward mathe- matics and Myers-Briggs personality type (Doctoral disserta- tion, University of Maryland College Park, l986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 70A. Ferris State University. (l988—l990). Catalogue. Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L., Diener, E., & Kelem, R. (1977). Two, three, or four heads are better than one: Modification of college performance by peer monitoring. Journal of Educational Psychology, a2, lOl-IOB. Gable, R. K. (l986). Instrument development in the affective domain. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing. Graner, M. H. (1986). Revision techniques: Peer editing and the revision workshop (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Connecticut, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, l09A. Haines, D. B., & McKeachie, N. J. (l967). Cooperative versus competitive discussion methods in teaching introductory psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 386-390. Haladyna, T., Shindoll, R., & Law, L. (l987). Item shells: Progress and potential. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Washing- ton, DC Harpster, G. F. (1985). Effects of group size and heterogeneity on participation, satisfaction, and member- and observer-rated group effectiveness in groups of college residence hall leaders (Doctoral dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, l984). Dissertation Abstracts International, ac, 359A-360A. Hartl, C. M. T. (l985). Cooperation: Student pairs as a catalyst for learning Spanish (Doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, l984). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, 3084A. Henerson, M. E., Morris, L. L., & Fitz-Gibbon, C. T. (l978). flaw to measure attitudes. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Himstreet, v. C., & Baty, w. M. (1984). Business communications (7th ed.). boston, MA: Kent Publishing Company. 137 House, B. A. (1982). An evaluation of two methods of teaching business letter-writing skills (Doctoral dissertation, The Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, 1982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 3;, 636A. Johnson, R. (l988, August). Personal interview, Cooperative Learning Workshop, Traverse City, Johnson, D. R., & Johnson, F. P. (l987). Joining together (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice—Hall. Johnson, D. R., & Johnson, R. T. (I983). The socialization and achievement crisis: Are cooperative learning experiences the solution? In L. Bickman (Ed.), Applied Social Psychology Annual, 5. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Johnson, D. R., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. J. (1988). Coopera— tion in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co. Jones, C. A. (l982). Peer teaching in permanent projects teams (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, l982). Dissertation Abstracts International, 33, 352A. Jordan, M. K. (1984). The effects of cooperative peer review on college students enrolled in required advanced technical writing courses (Doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, l983). Dissertation Abstracts International, 55, l3l9A. Kowalkoski, B., & Swartz, F. (l989). A self-raported profile of l988 Ferris freshmen (Faculty Research Grant). Big Rapids, MI: Ferris State University. Lang, N. A. (1983). The effects of a cooperative learning tech— nique, teams-games, tournament, on the academic achievement and attitude toward economics of college students enrolled in a principles of microeconomics course (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, l983). Dissertation Abstracts Interna- tional, ac, l5l7A. Lauderbach, K. A. (l986). Cooperative and individual learning activities: Their effects on performance in visualization of multiview orthographic projections (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, l294A. Leonard, D. J. (1988). Teaching communication for business at the undergraduate level. In J. C. Scott (Ed.), Facilitating commu- nication for business (pp. 125-l38). Reston, VA: National Business Education Association. 138 Loken, R. H. (1986). Priority-area consensus conferencing: Peer versus one-to-one, a study of an efficient method for achieving significant improvement in freshman writing apprehension and writing skill (Doctoral dissertation, Drake University, l985). Dissertation Abstracts International, lg, 2602A. Mathewson, D. S. (l986). Causal attributions and interpersonal attitudes in cooperative groups of females (Doctoral disserta- tion, University of Maryland, l985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 16, 2974A. McManus, M. V. H. (l987). A study of peer response groups in a tenth grade writing class (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, l986). Dissertation Abstracts International, ll, 2928A. Mitchell, R. B. (l988). Integrating the development of interper- sonal, listening, speaking, and written communication skills--. concluding the business communication course with realism. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication, §l, 27-29. Naisbitt, J. l982). Meqatrends. New York: Warner Books. Noland, T. K. (l986). The effects of ability grouping: A meta- analysis of research findings (Doctoral dissertation, Univer~ sity of Colorado at Boulder, l985). Dissertation Abstracts Internatigmal, 56, 2909A. Novotni, S. M. (l986). Peer tutoring: A study of its effect on mathematics achievement and attitude of ninth grade math I students of Harrisburg High School (Doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 36, 2509A. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track: How schools structure inegaal; ity. New Haven: Yale University Press. Pestillo, P. J., & Yokich, S. P. (l988). Report to the Governor’s commission on jobs and economic development. Lansing, MI. Reece, B. L. (l988). Developing those critical human relations skills. Vocational Education Journal, 63, 44-45. Renshaw, D. A. (l986). An experimental study to compare the effectiveness of two methods of instruction in written business communication at the collegiate level (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, 1985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 764A. 139 Roberts, N. H. (l986). The effects of grammar reviews and peer- editing on selected collegiate students’ ability to write business letters effectively (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, l985). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 994A. Robinson, C. A. M. (l987). Peer and traditional instruction: A comparison of the effectiveness of peer tutoring/editing and traditional instruction on the writing abilities of freshman composition students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas, l986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 295A- 296A. Sandman, R. S. (l973). The develo ment. validation, and applica- tion of a mnltidtmensionalrmathematics attitude instrument. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota. Saxe, S. (l987). The effect of peer interaction and incentive on adult learner achievement (Doctoral dissertation, University of San Francisco, l986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 31, 242lA. Shannon, R. F. (1983). A small group, personal growth method for the teaching of writing (Doctoral dissertation, the University of Michigan, 1983). Dissertation Abstracts International, SA, l7l4A. Simpson-Courts, w. P. (l986). Peer interaction as a teaching/ learning strategy: Its effects upon attitude, achievement, and metacognitive processing in a high school reading program (Doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, ZlOlA. Slavin, R. B. (l983). Cooperative learning: Student teams. New York: Longman. Smith, M. J. (l985). A comparison of c00perative and individualis- tic learning in associate degree nursing students (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, l984). Dissertation Abstracts International, l5, 2739A. Stiegler, C. B. (l984). Human interaction . . . efficient and effective sharing of information. Secretary, 35, 22. Strugala, R. A. (l984). The need for college writing programs: Changes in student attitudes, behaviors, self-esteem and writing ability in students enrolled in writing courses (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, l983). Disser- tation Abstracts International, 55, 2122A. 140 Swartz, F. (l982). A Study of internal validitvrand reliability of the mathematics attitude inventory_for businesstmathematics students. Unpublished paper presented in Education 822F, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Swartz, R. A. (l987). The effacts of attitudes and aptitudes in predictingcfinal course grades: Implications fortmylti-ability groupaorganization in business communication classes. Unpub- lished paper presented in Teacher Education 883, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Swift, P. W. (l987). The effect of peer review with self- evaluation on freshman writing performance, retention, and attitude at Broward Community College (Doctoral dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, l986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 3653A—3654A. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (l983). Using multivariate statistics. New York: Harper & Row. Webb, N. M. (l982). Student interaction and learning in small groups. Review of Educational Research, ta, 42l-445. Wilson, W. R. (l983). The use of permanent learning groups in teaching introductory accounting (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, l982). Dissertation Abstracts Inter— national, 33, 3635A-3636A. LIBRQRIES V I N U E T An T S N on G I H C I n