"5.“:
_ . 1!; 1 .
. trawl". .. (I...
.1)“.

.313. 0’

i ..

uh .. I...

Jmnw ‘

:5 )
EIJBt

. m.-
.
a .1. .cr
’,l\?

ﬁwﬁu

:v

 

i 4
Ammmw1umv

 

a...
hm”
ivv
‘9. .I
‘ 3”..."
f. s. .
.. :.

.3 i

an! a
52w...

 

 

 

 

 

.3 i . . ‘ .1. . . . . . . I _ ... 1‘. . v ‘
‘ ‘ I ‘ .utv . .. . ‘ .. .... . :v ..y .5 £125??? ,7 ‘ ; :

2. L36 + , , . .. :k.ﬁr...-,..w .- .. ; .. .

:3 ...V...P.Nf.e§,N ,. ‘

 

 
 
  
  

301589 7139

.h_.. ..___

lHl"Hill!IIIHJIHHHIHIHUHIll!!!)lllllllllll

-:—-—u-——..-—- r

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled
An Exploratory Study Into the Impact of the Level of Use
of Cooperative Learning'hiFifth Grade and in
Sixth Grade on Students' Adjustment to and

Achievement in Middle School
presented by

Janice K. Colliton

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. degree in Educational Administration

2%

Major professor

Date November 1996

 

MSU i: an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

LIBRARY

Mlchlgan State
Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to mnovo thb chockout from your rocord.
TO AVOID FINES rotum on or odor. dot. om.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”magma” "
h n {71; .‘m

I
(“.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU loAn AfﬂmotlvoAction/Equol Oppommlly Instltwon
Wanna-o1

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY INTO THE IMPACT OF THE LEVEL OF USE
OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN FIFTH GRADE AND IN
SIXTH GRADE ON STUDENTS’ ADJUSTMENT TO AND

ACHIEVEMENT IN MIDDLE SCHOOL

BY

Janice K. Colliton

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Educational Administration

1 996

ABSTRACT

AN EXPLORATORY STUDY INTO THE IMPACT OF THE LEVEL OF USE
OF COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN FIFTH GRADE AND IN
SIXTH GRADE ON STUDENTS’ ADJUSTMENT TO AND
ACHIEVEMENT IN MIDDLE SCHOOL
BY

Janice K. Colliton

In this study, it was theorized that a match between the level of use of
cooperative learning in both ﬁfth and sixth grades would positively affect students’
adjustment to and achievement in sixth grade. In addition, it was theorized that the
higher the level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth and/or sixth grade, the better
the adjustment and the higher the achievement would be in middle school. A high
level of use was deﬁned as proper implementation of the distinguishing
characteristics of a selected model of cooperative learning.

No signiﬁcant interaction effect was found between the level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative learning in sixth
grade on students’ adjustment to and achievement in sixth grade. Students who
experienced a low level of use of cooperative learning in sixth grade had signiﬁcantly
higher overall grade point averages (GPAs) than those who experienced moderate
to high levels of use of cooperative learning in sixth grade. Students who

experienced low to moderate levels of use of cooperative learning in sixth-grade

Janice K. Colliton
language arts had signiﬁcantly higher GPAs than those who experienced a high level
of use of cooperative learning in that subject. Students who experienced a moderate
level of use of cooperative learning in sixth-grade mathematics had signiﬁcantly
higher GPAs than those who experienced either low or high levels of use of
cooperative learning in that subject.

The researcher speculated that factors such as (a) the timing of the study; (b)
aspects of Role Strain Theory, such as a student’s personality, attitudes or
dispositions about coping with change. support from teachers and parents; (c) the
sociological conditions of the classroom which may support a more traditional
organization of instruction; (d) the appropriateness of the content of cooperative
group work; (e) the alignment of the curriculum content, mode of instruction, and
assessment/grading practices; and (f) school norms such as clear and focused
mission, instructional leadership, policies and procedures, and collegial support to
implement new organizations of instruction in the middle school might explain the

results.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I want to express appreciation to my doctoral committee, Dr. Janet E.
Alleman, Dr. Fred lgnatovich, Dr. Samuel Moore II, and Dr. David Johnson, for their
input and support as I conducted my research project. I know that they expected the
best from me and, throughout the process, took the time to explain ideas and
challenge my thinking. Thank you.

Support came from friends and colleagues in many ways. All their
encouraging words kept me going. One person in particular, Dr. Frederica Frost.
went way beyond the call of duty. Her guidance made all the difference.

My family’s loving patience and perseverance was my anchor. I recognize
that Jack, my husband, made sure that John, Ryan, and had what we needed to
survive as a family during the past few years as this dissertation was completed. I
have a great mother, Betty. She told me that ifyou think you can and work hard, you

can do whatever you want to do. She was right.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES ............................................... ix
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ........................ 1

Background and Problem Statement ...................... 1

Purpose of the Study ................................... 3

Research Questions ................................... 4

Student Adjustment .................................. 4

Student Achievement ...................... _ ........... 5

Rationale ............................................ 7

Signiﬁcance of the Study ............................... 10

Assumptions ........................................ 1 1

Limitations .......................................... 12

Deﬁnitions of Terms .................................. 13

Organization of the Dissertation ......................... 14

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE .................... 15

Introduction ......................................... 15

Developmental Characteristics of Middle School Students ..... 16

Middle School Climate and Program Components ........... 18

Studies on Student Adjustment .......................... 19

Cooperative Learning ................................. 23

Summary ........................................... 25

Ill. METHODOLOGY .................................... 27

Introduction ......................................... 27

Hypotheses ......................................... 28

Student Adjustment ................................. 28

Student Achievement ................................ 28

Description of the Study Setting and the Population .......... 3O

Instrumentation ...................................... 31
The Cognitive Abilities Test, Grade 5 .................... 31
Student Opinion Survey .............................. 32
Questionnaire on the Use of Cooperative Groups .......... 32
Data-Collection Procedures ............................ 34
Data-Analysis Techniques .............................. 35
Summary ........................................... 35
IV. RESULTS .......................................... 36
Introduction ........................................ 36
Description of the Study Participants ..................... 37
Results of Hypothesis Testing ........................... 42
Student Adjustment ................................. 42
Student Achievement ................................ 45
Summary of Results .................................. 61

V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS,
AND REFLECTIONS .................................. 65
Introduction ........................................ 65
Summary ........................................... 65
Rationale ......................................... 65
Purpose .......................................... 67
Methods and Procedures ............................. 68
Findings .......................................... 69
Conclusions and Discussion ........... . ................. 70
Student Adjustment ................................. 70
Student Achievement ................................ 72
Recommendations for Further Research .................. 78
Reﬂections ......................................... 79

APPENDICES

A. Student Opinion Survey ............................... 82
B. Questionnaire on the Use of Cooperative Groups ........... 85
C. Raw Data .......................................... 89
REFERENCES ................................................ 100

vi

10.

11.

LIST OF TABLES

Distribution of Sixth-Grade Students Participating in the Study by

Middle School ............................................ 37
Number of Student Participants From Each Elementary School in

the Study ................................................ 38
Distribution of Students Participating in the Study by Gender ........ 38
Level of Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth Grade ............... 40

Level of Use of Cooperative Learning in Sixth-Grade Language
Arts, Mathematics, Social Studies, and Science Classrooms ........ 41

Interaction Effect Between Level of Use of Cooperative Learning
in Fifth and Sixth Grades on Students’ Adjustment to Sixth
Grade ................................................... 43

Mean Adjustment Scores According to the Level of Use of
Cooperative Learning in Fifth and Sixth Grades .................. 43

Interaction Effect Between Level of Use of Cooperative Learning
in Fifth and Sixth Grades on Students’ Overall GPAs in Sixth .
Grade ................................................... 47

Overall GPAs According to the Level of Use of Cooperative Learning
in Fifth and Sixth Grades .................................... 47

Interaction Effect Between Level of Use of Cooperative Learning
in Fifth- and Sixth-Grade Language Arts on Students’ Achievement
in Sixth-Grade Language Arts ................................ 50

Mean GPAs in Sixth-Grade Language Arts According to the Level

of Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth- and Sixth-Grade
Language Arts ............................................ 50

vii

12.

13.

Interaction Effect Between Level of Use of Cooperative Learning
in Fifth- and Sixth-Grade Mathematics on Students’ Achievement
in Sixth-Grade Mathematics ............... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Mean GPAs in Sixth-Grade Mathematics According to the Level
of Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth- and Sixth-Grade

. “Mathematics ............................................. 53

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
C1.

CZ.

C3.

C4.

Interaction Effect Between Level of Use of Cooperative Learning
in Fifth- and Sixth-Grade Social Studies on Students’ Achievement
in Sixth-Grade Social Studies ................................ 56

Mean GPAs in Sixth-Grade Social Studies According to the Level
of Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth- and Sixth-Grade
Social Studies ............................................ 56

Interaction Effect Between Level of Use of Cooperative Learning
in Fifth- and Sixth-Grade Science on Students’ Achievement
in Sixth-Grade Science ..................................... 59

Mean GPAs in Sixth-Grade Science According to the Level
of Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth- and Sixth-Grade

Science ................................................. 59
Adjustment to Sixth Grade ................................... 62
Overall GPAs In Sixth Grade ............................... .. . 62
Sixth-Grade Language Arts .................................. 63
Sixth-Grade Mathematics ................................... 63
Sixth-Grade Social Studies .................................. 64
Sixth-Grade Science ....................................... 64
Ages of Students Participating in the Study ...................... 89
Distribution of Scores on the Cognitive Abilities Test,

5th Grade ................................................ 90
Students’ Grades in Four Subject Areas ........................ 94
Distribution of Scores on the Student Opinion Survey .............. 98

viii

LIST OF FIGURES
Adjustment Scores in Sixth Grade According to the Level of
Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth and Sixth Grades ............. 44

GPAs in Sixth Grade According to the Level of Use of
Cooperative Learning in Fifth and Sixth Grades .................. 48

GPAs in Sixth-Grade Language Arts According to the Level of
Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth and Sixth Grades ............. 51

GPAs in Sixth-Grade Mathematics According to the Level of
Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth and Sixth Grades ............. 54

GPAs in Sixth-Grade Social Studies According to the Level of
Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth and Sixth Grades ............. 57

GPAs in Sixth-Grade Social Studies According to the Level of
Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth and Sixth Grades ............. 60

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Backgmundjndﬁmblemﬁtatemem

Writers on teaching and learning in the middle grades (grades six, seven, and
eight) have pointed out repeatedly that students at this age have unique
developmental characteristics and educational needs (Carnegie Council on
Adolescent Development, 1989). Early adolescence, the beginning of the change
from childhood to early adulthood, creates a special set of circumstances with which
students in the middle grades must deal. Each adolescent child experiences his or
her own rate of physical, intellectual, emotional, and social development, and as
Omstein (1992) pointed out, each must deal with new students, dating, sexual
awareness, and pressures from parents and/or peers, larger school populations,
changing classes, and limited teacher time to explain curriculum or to care about
students’ problems. All of these factors are stressful to the adolescent. In addition,
most middle schools tend to be subject deﬁned and content driven, rather than
student oriented (George, Stevenson, Thomason, & Beane, 1992; Muth &Alverman,
1992; Omstein, 1992).

Researchers have found that when young adolescents make the transition

from an elementary school to a middle-grades school, achievement-related attitudes,

1

2

values, and performance often deteriorate (Midgley, Feldlaufer, 8 Eccles, 1989). In
addition, researchers have suggested that these students are provided with fewer
opportunities for interaction and decision making (Feldlaufer, Midgley, & Eccles,
1988)

For more than 20 years, researchers have studied students’ adjustment to
middle-level schools (Feldlaufer et al., 1988; Fenzel, 1989a; Mitman, Lash, &
Mergendeller, 1985; Mitman 8 Mergendeller, 1981, 1985; Stefanich, Wills, & Buss,
1991 ). Role Strain Theory has been used as a framework within which to study the
effect that the change from elementary school to middle school has on students’
adjustment to middle school (Fenzel, 1989a, 1989b, 1989c, 1989d, 1990a, 1991).
In these studies, adjustment was operationalized as positive self-concept, perceived
competence, and high achievement as measured by students’ grade point averages
(GPAs). Role strain occurs if the student’s expectations of school and the
expectations of others with whom the student interacts are contradictory. When
Role Strain Theory is applied to adjustment, the assumption is that the less role
strain the student experiences, the better the student’s adjustment to and
achievement in middle school.

Role strain is reduced by the student’s personal coping resources, such as
a stable personality, attitudes and dispositions that promote effective adaptation, the
student’s experiencing an environment that is a developmental match, and social
support from signiﬁcant others. Social support for adolescents comes from peers,

teachers, and parents (Fenzel, 1991).

3

Rounds (1982) recognized that the move to middle school may be a difﬁcult
change, but it does not have to be daunting if certain conditions exist:

If the student role that is learned in elementary school also prevails in middle

school the move to the new setting may not be as difﬁcult as one might

expect. Students may be able to employ many of the academic and social
behaviors, expectations, etc. that worked successfully forthem in elementary

school in their new setting as well. (p. 2)

A common theme that emerged from the research on adjustment to middle
school is that a match between the organization of instruction at both levels of
schooling, elementary and middle school, seems to positively inﬂuence students’
adjustment to and achievement in middle school. Match was deﬁned as consistency
of experiences with the organization of instruction at both the elementary school and
middle school levels. What was not common in these studies was the way in which
organization of instruction was deﬁned. Researchers looked at the consistency of
a student’s experiences in a number of ways: the amount of homework given to
students (Fenzel, 1989b), team teaching ordepartmentalization (Fenzel, 1989b), the
level of use of interdisciplinary teaming (Stefanich, WIIIS, & Buss, 1991), and the
activity structure in the classroom (Rounds, 1982). The idea to study the effect that
a match in the organization of instruction in the ﬁfth and sixth grades has on

students’ transition to middle school came from the above-mentioned body of

research on students’ transition from elementary school to middle school.

W

Researchers have found that a match between the organization of instruction

in elementary school and middle school positively affects students’ adjustment to

4

and achievement in middle school (Fenzel, 1989a, 1989b). Researchers also have
found that the use of cooperative learning has a positive inﬂuence on students’
achievement, particularly in grades two through nine (Slavin, 1987, 1989190).
Therefore, the researcher's primary purpose in this exploratory study was to
determine whether a match in the level of use of cooperative learning as the
organization of instruction in ﬁfth and sixth grades positively affects students’
adjustment to and achievement in middle school. In addition, the researcher sought
to determine (a) whether a match between a high level of use of cooperative learning
in ﬁfth grade and in sixth grade has the greatest positive effect on students’
adjustment to and achievement in middle school, and (b) whether a high level of use
of cooperative learning in ﬁfth and/or sixth grade has a greater effect on students’
achievement in sixth grade than do low or moderate levels of use of cooperative

learning in ﬁfth and/or sixth grade.

Besearchﬁuesticns
The following questions were posed to address the study purpose and to

guide the collection of data for this research.

StudentAdiustment
1. Does a match between a high level of use of cooperative learning in
the ﬁfth-grade classroom and a high level of use of cooperative learning in the sixth-

grade classroom affect students’ adjustment to sixth grade?

5

2. Do students who experience a high level of use of cooperative learning
in ﬁfth grade adjust better to sixth grade than students who experience low or
moderate levels of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade?

3. Do students who experience a high level of use of cooperative learning
in sixth grade adjust better to sixth grade than students who experience low or

moderate levels of use of cooperative learning in sixth grade?

StudenLAthexemem

4. Does a match between a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming in
the ﬁfth-grade classroom and a high level of use of cooperative learning in the sixth-
grade classroom affect students’ GPAs in sixth grade?

5. Do students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
learning in ﬁfth grade have higher GPAs in sixth grade than students who
experienced low or moderate levels of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade?

6. Do students who experienced a high level of 'use of cooperative
learning in sixth grade have higher GPAs in sixth grade than students who
experienced low or moderate levels of use of cooperative learning in sixth grade?

7. Does a match between a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming In
ﬁfth~grade language arts and a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming in sixth-
grade language arts affect students’ GPAs in sixth-grade language arts?

8. Do students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative

learning in ﬁfth-grade language arts have higher GPAs in sixth-grade language arts

6
than students who experienced low or moderate levels of use of cooperative Ieaming
in ﬁfth-grade language arts?

9. Do students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
learning in sixth-grade language arts have higher GPAs in sixth- grade language arts
than students who experienced low or moderate levels of use of cooperative learning
in sixth-grade language arts?

10. Does a match between a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming in
ﬁfth-grade mathematics and a high level of use of cooperative learning in sixth-grade
mathematics affect students’ GPAs in sixth-grade mathematics?

11. Do students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
learning in ﬁfth-grade mathematics have higher GPAs in sixth-grade mathematics
than students who experienced low or moderate levels of uSe of cooperative learning
in ﬁfth-grade mathematics?

12. Do students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
Ieaming in sixth-grade mathematics have higherGPAs in sixth- grade mathematics
than students who experienced low or moderate levels of use of cooperative Ieaming
in sixth-grade mathematics?

13. Does a match between a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming in
ﬁfth-grade social studies and a high level of use of cooperative learning in sixth-
grade social studies affect students’ GPAs in sixth-grade social studies?

14. Do students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative

learning in ﬁfth-grade social studies have higher GPAs in sixth-grade social studies

7
than students who experienced low or moderate levels of use of cooperative Ieaming
in ﬁfth-grade social studies?

15. Do students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
learning In sixth-grade social studies have higher GPAs in sixth- grade social studies
than students who experienced low or moderate levels of use of cooperative Ieaming
in sixth-grade social studies?

16. Does a match between a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming in
ﬁfth-grade science and a high level of use of cooperative learning in sixth-grade
science affect students’ GPAs in sixth—grade science?

17. Do students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
learning in ﬁfth-grade science have higher GPAs in sixth-grade science than
students who experienced low or moderate levels of use of cooperative learning in
fifth-grade science?

18. Do students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
Ieaming in sixth-grade science have higher GPAs in sixth-grade science than
students who experienced low or moderate levels of use of cooperative Ieaming in

sixth-grade science?

Rationale
In this research, cooperative learning was selected as the organization of
instruction under investigation. A match in the organization of instruction was

deﬁned as the student’s experience with the same level of use of cooperative

8
learning in both the ﬁfth- and sixth-grade classrooms. Cooperative learning was
selected as the organization of instruction for the following reasons:

1. The recommendations for appropriate practices in middle school
encourage the use of cooperative Ieaming as a way to meet the developmental
needs of students (Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, 1989). The use
of cooperative learning takes advantage of the middle school student’s increased
peer orientation, the important role that groups play in students’ Ieaming and
motivation, and the student’s need to be involved in active Ieaming (Mitman &
Lambert, 1992; Stevens & Burkin, 1992). COOperative Ieaming promotes the use of
higher-level thinking and decision-making skills (Johnson & Johnson, 1984) and
provides adolescents with peers who can serve as appropriate social models (Muth
& Alverrnan, 1992).

2. Social support mediates the potential negative effects of role strain on
students’ adjustment and achievement (Fenzel, 1989a, 1989c, 19903, 1991). Role
strain is reduced through social support from signiﬁcant others, and cooperative
Ieaming provides the student with social support from his or her peers.

3. A body of research on cooperative learning has substantiated the use
of cooperative learning as a means of organizing classrooms to positively inﬂuence
students’ adjustment to and achievement In middle school (Slavin, 1989/90).

In cooperative learning, students have the opportunity to work in small,
heterogeneous groups. They must take control of their learning and become

decision makers. In cooperative learning, the content of instruction challenges the

9
students’ thinking because they must listen to different ideas, explain theirthoughts,
and resolve conﬂicts (Johnson 8 Johnson, 1984).

In this study, cooperative Ieaming asthe organization of instruction comprised
the following characteristics:

1. Positive goal interdependence-students perceive that their success
in the group depends on the success of other group members.

2. Individual accountability—students maximize their own learning as well
as that of the other group members.

3. Students’ learning and use of cooperative skills.

4. Students’ enhancement oftheir use of cooperative skills by processing
these skills (Johnson & Johnson, 1984).

Johnson and Johnson’s model of cooperative learning was selected to
represent the organization of instruction in this study for three reasons:

1. This model of cooperative learning is the basis of the staff-
development program in the school district involved in this study.

2. Slavin (1989/90) found that positiVe interdependence and individual
accountability are two critical attributes of cooperative Ieaming. Johnson and
Johnson’s model includes these two characteristics.

3. The Johnson and Johnson model expands Slavin’s ﬁndings by adding
the steps of directly teaching and processing the social skills as distinguishing
characteristics of cooperative learning. Musial (1992) pointed out that teaching and

processing social skills ﬁt with John Dewey’s ideas of developing classrooms that

10

are cooperative social organizations. Paying attention to the social skills aspect of
cooperative Ieaming may reduce the potential negative effects that role strain can
have on students’ adjustment to and achievement in middle school.

The concept, level of use, deﬁned as the correct implementation of the
distinguishing characteristics of an organization for instruction in a classroom, came
from the Concems-Based Adoption Model (Hord, Rutherford, Huling-Austin, 8. Hall, I
1987). This model allows researchers to assess the level at which a teacher is
correctly implementing an instructional technique in the classroom. In this case, the
level of use of cooperative learning in students’ ﬁfth- and sixth-grade classrooms
was the organization of instruction under study. A high level of use of cooperative
learning means that the distinguishing characteristics of the Johnson and Johnson
model are correctly implemented. The level of use of cooperative learning—high,
moderate, low, or no use-was measured using a questionnaire completed by each
student’s ﬁfth- and sixth-grade teachers. The results of this study will help determine
whether a match between the level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁrth grade and
the level of use of cooperative learning in sixth grade positively inﬂuences students’

adjustment to and achievement in sixth grade.

5' 'ﬁ [ll SI I

Research on students’ adjustment to middle school has indicated that a
match between students’ experience with the organization of instruction in
elementary school and their experience with the organization of instruction in middle

school positively inﬂuences students’ adjustment to and achievement in middle

11

school. Researchers have found that the use of cooperative Ieaming as an
organization of instruction in the classroom was positively related to students’
adjustment to and achievement in school (Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, & Roy, 1984;
Slavin, 1981, 1988). In this study, the researcher theorized that a match between
the level of use of cooperative Ieaming in both the ﬁfth- and sixth-grade classrooms
would positively inﬂuence students’ adjustment to and achievement in sixth grade.
In addition, it was theorized that the higher the level of use of cooperative learning
in ﬁfth and/or sixth grade, the better the student’s adjustment and the higher the

student’s achievement would be in middle school.

Assumptions

The researcher made the following assumptions in carrying out this study:

1. It was assumed that the level of use of cooperative learning in the
individual 1993-94 sixth-grade classrooms was uniform for all students in each
classroom. Sixth-grade teachers identiﬁed for the study completed the
Questionnaire on the Use of Cooperative Groups (Johnson & Johnson, 1986), which
indicated their level of use of cooperative learning in the classroom.

2. It was assumed that the level of use of cooperative learning in the
individual 1992-93 ﬁfth grade classrooms was uniform for all students in each
classroom. Fifth-grade teachers identiﬁed for the study also completed the
Questionnaire on the Use of Cooperative Groups.

3. It was assumed that there was no systematic bias in GPAs because

class assignments in sixth grade are random. In this district, students leaving ﬁfth-

12
grade classrooms do not necessarily attend the same middle school, nor are they

assigned to the same sixth-grade classrooms.

| . 'l l'

1. Speciﬁc results of this study may be applicable only to the groups
involved. However, the ﬁndings from this study may contribute to the research on
adjustment to middle school, speciﬁcally, examining the effect that a match between
high levels of use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth-grade and in sixth-grade classrooms
has on students’ adjustment to and achievement in middle school.

2. There was no control for initial differences in students’ attitudes about
their adjustment to middle school.

3. Students’ responses on the Student Opinion Survey were based on
their perceptions. No attempt was made to determine causes for those perceptions.
Students’ perceptions can be inﬂuenced by a number of factors, some of which are
not school related, such as maturation, personal experiences, health problems,
personal crises, level of motivation, memory, and/or competence offorrner teachers.

4. Assessment of students’ adjustment and achievement in March 1994
may have been inﬂuenced by the effect of history (Campbell & Stanley, 1976). Data
for this study were collected in March 1994; assessment of the students’ adjustment
earlier in the school year might have provided a more accurate picture of students’
reactions to sixth grade. The passage of time also might have diminished the
researcher’s ability to assess the effect that the level of use of cooperative Ieaming

in ﬁfth grade had on students’ adjustment to and achievement in sixth grade.

13
5. Relying on teacher reports rather than direct observations of level of
use of cooperative learning in each ﬁfth- and sixth-grade classroom might have
resulted in some degree of response bias.
6. The fact that one middle school chose nOt to participate in this study

may have resulted in some degree of sampling bias.

D t] 'I' [I

The following terms are deﬁned in the context in which they are used in this
dissertation.

Adinstmenttcmiddleschccl: A student’s perceptions of his or her adjustment
to middle school, as measured by his or her responses to the Student Opinion
Survey (Mitman, 1981). I

W: A cumulative average of all of the student’s
grades, based on a 4.0 scale.

Inietaciinneﬂem: The effect that a student’s experience with the organization
of instruction in ﬁfth grade and his or her experience with the organization of
instruction in sixth grade has on the student’s adjustment to and achievement in
middle school.

LeyeLQLumLcQQperaﬂyileamjng: The correct implementation of the
distinguishing characteristics of Johnson and Johnson’s model of cooperative
Ieaming, as measured by the classroom teachers’ responses to the Questionnaire

on the Use of Cooperative Groups (Johnson & Johnson, 1986).

14
Match: The consistency of the experiences a student has with the
organiZation of instruction, in this case the level of use of cooperative learning in the
classroom, in both his or her ﬁfth- and sixth-grade classrooms.
Studentability: The student’s score on the ﬁfth-grade Cognitive Abilities Test
(McGraw—Hill, 1987).
StudenLachiexement: The student's overall GPA, as well as GPAs in

language arts, mathematics. social studies, and science.

0 'I' [II D' II'

Chapter I included the background of the study and the problem under
investigation, the purpose and signiﬁcance of the study, research questions,
rationale, assumptions and limitations, and deﬁnitions of key terms. Chapter II
contains a review of literature related to the study. Topics include developmental
characteristics of middle school students, middle school climate and program
components, studies on student adjustment, and cooperative Ieaming. The
methodology of the study is described in Chapter III. Results of the data analyses
are presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V contains a summary of the study,
conclusions drawn from the study ﬁndings, recommendations for further research,

and the writer’s reﬂections.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

IDILQduQIiQn

The researcher’s primary purpose in this study was to determine whether a
match in the level of use of cooperative learning as the organization of instruction in
ﬁfth and sixth grades positively affects students’ adjustment to and achievement in
middle school. In addition, the researcher sought to determine (a) whether a match
between a high level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade and in sixth grade
has the greatest positive effect on students' adjustment to and achievement in
middle school, and (b) whether a high level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth
and/or sixth grade has a greater effect on students’ achievement in sixth grade than
do low or moderate levels of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth and/or sixth grade.

To provide a background for this study, writings on the developmental
characteristics of middle school students, recommendations that experts on middle
school education have made regarding the appropriate educational practices for
students at this level of schooling, studies on adjustment to middle school, and
research on cooperative Ieaming are reviewed in this chapter.

Experts on middle school education agree that it is important to create a

school environment that promotes students’ achievement and helps students adjust

15

16
to the emotional, social, and physical challenges of early adolescence (Carnegie
Council on Adolescent Development, 1989). This review of literature on the
developmental characteristics of middle school students, middle school climate, and
recommended program components is intended to help the reader understand the
type of environment that will promote students’ adjustment to and achievement in

middle school.

[1 I IICI I'l' [II'IIISI ISII I

One of the last opportunities educators have to inﬂuence many youngsters’
educational and personal direction is in early adolescence. The middle-grades
school is one of the key socialization institutions for early adolescents. It represents
a critical turning point in the lives of American youths (Jackson 8 Hombeck, 1989).

Early adolescence presents unique challenges to students. Romano,
Hedberg, and Lulich (1973) described the developmental growth of young
adolescents and urged educators to plan activities and programs that address these
characteristics. Children grow and mature at different rates, causing some students
to make unfavorable comparisons between themselves and other students in terms
of their physical development or their ability to perform in class. Emotional and
social changes are evidenced by extreme variances in moods and conﬂicts with
parents. Adolescents also are concerned about their relationships with the opposite
sex, worry about nonacceptance, are inﬂuenced by peer pressure, want fair
teachers, and engage in daydreaming. As students mature physically (increase in

body size, improved motor skills), they can cope with more complex mental tasks

17

such as making judgments, thinking reﬂectively, making generalizations, and
engaging in hypothetical reasoning. Also at this stage of development, students’
interests in society broaden.

Puberty and the onset of puberty are characterized by height and weight
gains, breast development, body and pubic hair growth, penile and testicular
development, and menarche (Muth 8 Alverrnann, 1992). A student's physical
development affects his or her psychological and social development. Because of
the numerous challenges these young adolescents are encountering, middle school
programs need to address such issues as general health and diet; cigarette, alcohol,
and drug use; sex education; and the students’ emotional and social needs.

A wide range of cognitive abilities is evident among middle school students.
A student’s stage of cognitive development can range from concrete operational
(ages 6 to 12), where students tend to learn better visually than verbally, to formal
operational thought (ages 11 to adult). To address these differences, teachers of
middle-grade students need to use concrete, hands-on experiences and visual aids
during instruction. Lessons should be structured so that there are opportunities for
peers to interact with each other and the teacher (Muth 8 Alverrnann, 1992). This
interaction with peers and the teacher allows students to gain valuable insights into
how others think and learn.

Vygotsky’s (1978) social perspective of cognitive development suggests that,
when young adolescents interact with each other, the social support necessary for

Ieaming is present. Students need the opportunity to hear teachers think aloud.

18

They also need the opportunity to work with peers in small groups to discuss issues,
make judgments and decisions, reﬂect on the ideas of others, and engage in
hypothetical reasoning (Bandura, 1986; Romano et al., 1973).

Most students in middle school are concerned with developing their personal
identities. A student’s self-concept is greatly inﬂuenced by experiences with parents,
peers, and school. It is important for students to interact with their peers in ways that
allow for individual recognition of accomplishments and encouragement of creative,
academic, and social growth. Middle school climate and program components are
designed to address the developmental needs of early adolescents, thus improving

students’ attitudes toward school and their academic achievement.

Il'lll SI IDI' l IE C I

The overall climate of a middle school-attentiveness to meeting the needs
of the early adolescent-is an important part of the literature on middle schools. The
Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development (1989) presented the ﬁndings of its
Task Force on Education of Young Adolescents in a document entitled Iurning
Eeinte; Preparing American Youth ter the 2151 Century. In that report, middle
schools were urged to enhance success for all learners by eliminating tracking and
promoting cooperative learning. Cooperative learning is considered an important
way to organize instruction because it helps create a climate that addresses the
developmental needs and challenges faced by the middle school child.

Writers on appropriate middle school practices also have taken into account

the developmental characteristics of early adolescents. Researchers have

19

recommended the following program components for effective middle schools: (a)
interdisciplinary teams (Cawelti, 1988; George et al., 1992; Lounsbury 8 Johnston,
1986; Muth 8 Alverrnann, 1992), (b) exploratory courses (Cawelti, 1988; George et
al., 1992; Lounsbury et al., 1986; Muth 8 Alverrnann, 1992), (c) long-term student-
teacher relationships (Costar, 1985; George et al., 1992; Georgiady 8 Romano,
1973; Johnston 8 Markle, 1986; Lounsbury 8 Johnston, 1988; Muth 8 Alverrnann,
1992), (d) use of a variety of groupings and instructional strategies (George et al.,
1992; Lounsbury 8 Johnston, 1988; Muth 8 Alverrnann, 1992), and (e) parental
involvement (Omstein, 1992). The use of a variety of grouping and instructional
strategies, particularly the use of cooperative learning, enhances middle schoolers’

academic, social, and emotional development.

SII' SIIIEI'I l

Upon leaving elementary school, students face many cognitive, physical,
social, and emotional changes. These students must confront a new level of
schooling with different expectations, or at least a perceived difference in
expectations between the new school and their elementary school. Feldhaufer,
Midgley, and Eccles (1988) found that the transition to middle school causes a
deterioration in students’ achievement-related attitudes, values, and performance.
Researchers have studied students’ adjustment to the middle grades in order to
determine what variables at the elementary level and/or at the middle school level

affect students’ adjustment.

20

Any change requires adjustment, and changing from one school level
(elementary) to another (middle school) may or may not be traumatic. Researchers
have found that positive performance and attitudinal outcome are associated with
well-organized, involving, and supportive school environments (Brookover 8
Erickson, 1975; Felzer, Ginter, 8 Primavera, 1982; Power 8 Cotterell, 1981) and
high-quality instructional performance of the teachers (Mergendeller 8 Mitman,
1985).

Eccles and Midgley (1984) argued that the nature of the school environment
is crucial to the effect the transition has on early adolescents’ development. They
suggested thatcertain characteristics ofthe school setting, including ability grouping,
whole-class instruction, classroom control, higher standards for grading, and lack of
emphasis on developmentally appropriate cognitive challenges, have a detrimental
inﬂuence on students’ achievement-related beliefs and motivation. These
researchers suggested that a school setting that is developmentally appropriate for
early adolescents is one in which there is interdisciplinary team teaching, use of a
variety of teaching strategies including cooperative learning, and heterogeneous
grouping, thus minimizing negative adjustment effects.

Fenzel (1989a, 1989d) applied the concept of role strain when studying
students’ adjustment to middle school. He deﬁned a role as "a set of activities and
relations expected of a person occupying a particular position in society. Individuals
hold . . . speciﬁc roles such as student” (p. 3). Middle school students have a

particular set of expectations about schools. So do the adults—parents, teachers,

21

and others—with whom the students interact. Role strain is created when the
students’ and the adults’ expectations are contradictory. When Role Strain Theory
is applied to school adjustment, it is assumed that the less role strain that occurs in
the transition from elementary to middle school, the better the student’s adjustment.
Role strain can be minimized when students experience a developmentally
appropriate teaching environment, receive social support for Ieaming, and have a
set of experiences in one setting (elementary school) that can be transferred to the
new setting (middle school).

Following is a summary of Fenzel’s ﬁndings from a series of studies applying
Role Strain Theory to students’ adjustment. These studies focused on the
organization of instruction in the school setting:

1. Team teaching may contribute to decreased role strain by reducing the
size of the early adolescent’s reference group and providing more intimate contact
with teachers and peers (Fenzel, 1989d).

2. The difference in demands between elementary school and middle
school may affect the quality of the transition. Fenzel (1989a) recommended that
elementary teachers make demands on students for independent homework that
approximate those made by middle school teachers.

3. A middle school environment that includes the use of cooperative
Ieaming as an organization of instruction minimizes strain and enhances early

adolescents’ self-esteem and motivation to learn. Fenzel (1990b) suggested that

22

such a middle school environment may yield other beneﬁts, such as reducing the
dropout rate and promoting lifelong learning.

Fenzel’s ﬁndings suggest that the developmental appropriateness of the
school setting and a match between the elementary school and the middle school
organization of instruction allow students to experience a smoother transition to
middle school in terms of their academic achievement and social adjustment.

Other researchers have studied the inﬂuence that a school’s organization of
instruction has on students’ adjustment. Feldhaufer et al. (1988); Mitman, Lash, and
Mergendeller (1989); and Rounds (1981) studied classroom environments across
school levels (elementary and middle grades). Their ﬁndings suggested that there
may be a mismatch between classroom experiences at the two levels of schooling.
Rounds concluded that “the success a student’s skill in decoding, understanding,
and responding to the demands placed on him by different conﬁgurations of activity
structure elements may be a more important elementary school experience than
merely moving from one teacher to another' (p. 8).

Both Fenzel and Rounds recognized that decoding the role of student is
important to early adolescents as they move to middle school, and that the strain
caused by the change from one level of schooling to another can be minimized if
youngsters can transfer what they know about their role as student to the new
setting. Providing students with a consistency of experiences in elementary school

and middle schools will help bring about a successful adjustment to middle school.

23
Was

Stevens and Durkin (1992) maintained that students in the middle grades
often have low attendance, exhibit poor attitudes toward school, and lack mastery
of literacy and numeracy skills. Because cooperative Ieaming has been
recommended consistently in the literature on middle schools as an effective way to
organize instruction, it is important to understand how it can be used to address the
above-mentioned problems.

In his synthesis of research on cooperative learning, Slavin (1989l90) found
that there were two areas of agreement among researchers. Cooperative learning,
when it is properly implemented, improves the achievement of basic skills among
students in grades two through nine, and it has a positive inﬂuence on affective
outcomes. Slavin deﬁned proper implementation as the existence of two
characteristics of cooperative learning groups: positive interdependence and
individual accountability. Positive interdependence is the student’s perception that
his or her success in the group depends on the success of the other group members
(Johnson 8 Johnson, 1984). Individual accountability means that each student is
held accountable for his or her contribution to the group; each student's mastery of
the material ls thereby maximized (Johnson 8 Johnson, 1984).

Johnson and Johnson (1989l90) and Slavin (1990) believed that students
who are allowed to work in groups can experience improved intergroup relationships,
enhanced self-esteem, better attitudes toward classmates and school, and improved

ability to work collaboratively with others. However, Johnson and Johnson believed

24

that interpersonal and small-group skills are essential to the success of cooperative
learning. They asserted that the vital characteristics of cooperative learning are
positive interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face interaction, direct
Instruction of cooperative skills, and implementation of the cooperative skills
(Johnson 8 Johnson, 1989190; Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, 8 Roy, 1984).

Cooperative Ieaming (a) promotes the use of higher-reasoning strategies and
greater critical-thinking competencies; (b) promotes more positive attitudes toward
subject areas; (c) helps students master collaborative competencies at a higher
level; (d) is positively related to psychological health (emotional maturity, well-
adjusted social relations, strong personal identity, and positive attitudes about
others); (a) promotes constructive socialization among classmates regardless of
differences in ability levels, genders, handicapping conditions, ethnic groups, and
socioeconomic statuses; and (f) creates a helping attitudetoward classmates. Other
outcomes include (a) a perception of peer support and acceptance; (b) greater
cognitive and affective perspective taking; (c) enhanced self-esteem; (d) positive
attitudes about working with other students in the future; and (e) increased liking of
teachers and perception of them as being supportive, both academically and
personally (Johnson et al., 1984). The use of cooperative learning takes advantage
of middle school students’ increased peer orientation, the important role that groups
play in students’ Ieaming and motivation, and students’ need to be involved in active

versus passive learning (Mitman 8 Lambert, 1992; Stevens 8 Durkin, 1992).

25

Cooperative learning appears to be an important way to organize instruction
that can help educators enhance students’ adjustment to middle school.
Cooperative learning provides social support for learning and is apprOpriate for use
in both elementary and middle schools (Slavin, 1990). If they apply cooperative
Ieaming correctly, middle school teachers will have at least one way to deal with the
decline in academic performance that seems to plague students in the middle
grades, and they will be better able to address the social and emotional needs of

their students.

Summary

Students entering middle school differ greatly—cognitively, physically, socially,
and emotionally. Educators’ ability to understand this developmental stage, to
create an appropriate school climate, and to implement an appropriate organization
of instruction is crucial if students are to develop positive attitudes about Ieaming,
self, and others. Many believe that middle school is the turning point in a student’s
education that socializes the student either positively or negatively about school.
Experts agree that it is important to create a school environment that promotes
student achievement and helps students adjust to the emotional, social, and physical
challenges of early adolescence.

Studies on adjustment have indiCated that there is a need for a supportive
environment in the middle school that meets the cognitive, physical, and
psychological needs of early adolescents. Repeatedly, experts on middle schools

have recommended the use of cooperative learning as one way to address these

26
needs. Fenzel (1989c), Feldhaufer et al. (1988), Mitman et al. (1989), and Rounds

(1989) suggested that a match between the organization of instruction in elementary
school and that in middle school promotes students’ success in middle school.
Cooperative learning consistently has been mentioned in the literature on
appropriate middle school practices. It has been recommended as an organization
of instruction that will improve students’ academic achievement and achievement-
related attitudes, social skills, and self-esteem. Cooperative learning is a way to
address the developmental needs of students by (a) providing social support for
learning at a time when peers are important to these students; (b) allowing students
to be actively involved in problem solving, perspective taking, and decision making;
and (0) allowing all students to receive individual recognition in the psychologically
safe environment of the group. Cooperative learning appears to be particularly
effective in promoting achievement and improving social and emotional adjustment

to school and peers for a wide variety of students.

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

Intmslucilan

The researcher’s primary purpose in this study was to determine whether a
match in the level of use of cooperative learning as the organization of instruction in
ﬁfth and sixth grades positively affects students’ adjustment to and achievement in
middle school. In addition, the researcher sought to determine (a) whether a match
between a high level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade and in sixth grade
has the greatest positive effect on students’ adjustment to and achievement in
middle school, and (b) whether a high level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth
and/or sixth grade has a greater effect on students’ achievement in sixth grade than
do low or moderate levels of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth and/or sixth grade.

In this chapter, the methodology of the study is explained. First, the study
setting and the population are described. Next, the hypotheses are stated. The '
instruments used to collect the data are . discussed, and the data-collection

procedures and data-analysis techniques are described.

27

28
Hypotheses

The following null hypotheses were formulated to analyze the data collected
in this study. The hypotheses are organized into two categories. Hypotheses
dealing with students’ adjustment to middle school are listed ﬁrst. The second group
of hypotheses deals with students’ achievement in middle school, as measured by

their GPAs.

Willem

Nuﬂhxmtbesisl: There is no interaction effect between the level of use of
cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming
in sixth grade on students’ adjustment to sixth grade.

Null_|:typ_otnesis_2: There is no difference in adjustment to sixth grade
between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
learning in ﬁfth grade and students who experienced either a low or a
moderate level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade.

NuLHypetnesiLa: There is no difference in adjustment to sixth grade
between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
learning in sixth grade and students who experienced either a low or a
moderate level of use of cooperative Ieaming in sixth grade.

StudentAcbiexement
Overall Grade Point Averages:

NuILtlxnothesisA: There is no interaction effect between the level of use of
cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming
in sixth grade on students’ GPAs in sixth grade.

, Nullﬂynotnesieﬁ: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth grade between
students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth
grade and students who experienced either a moderate or a low level of use
of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade.

29

W: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth grade between
students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming in sixth
grade and students who experienced either a moderate or a low level of use
of cooperative learning in sixth grade.

Language Arts:

NutLtlypetnesieZ: There is no interaction effect between the level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming
In sixth grade on students' GPAs in sixth-grade language arts.

W: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth-grade language
arts between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
learning in ﬁfth-grade language arts and studentswho experienced either a
low or a moderate level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth-grade language
arts.

Nulﬂymtnesjsj: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth-grade language
arts between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
Ieaming in sixth-grade language arts and students who experienced either a
low or a moderate level of use of cooperative learning in sixth-grade language
arts.

Mathematics:

W: There is no interaction effect between the level of use of
cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming
in sixth grade on students’ GPAs in sixth-grade mathematics.

NutLHypetnesieJJ: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth-grade
mathematics between students who experienced a high level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth-grade mathematics and students who
experienced either a low or a moderate level of use of cooperative Ieaming
in ﬁfth—grade mathematics.

W: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth-grade
mathematics between students who experienced a high level of use of
cooperative learning in sixth-grade mathematics and students who
experienced either a low or a moderate level of use of cooperative learning
in sixth—grade mathematics.

30
Social Studies:

Nuthtypetneelng: There is no Interaction effect between the level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming
in sixth grade on students’ GPAs in sixth-grade social studies.

NunﬁypgtneeieJA: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth-grade social
studies between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
Ieaming in ﬁfth-grade social studies and students who experienced either a
low or a moderate level of use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth-grade social
studies.

NulLliypntbesisJﬁ: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth-grade social
studies between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative

learning in sixth-grade social studies and students who experienced either a
low or a moderate level of use of cooperative learning in sixth-grade social
studies.

Science:
NulLljypgthes’rsJﬁ: There is no interaction effect between the level of use of

cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming
in sixth grade on students’ GPAs in sixth-grade science.

W: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth-grade science
between students who experienced a high level of use of c00perative
Ieaming in ﬁfth-grade science and students who experienced either a low or
a moderate level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth-grade science.

W: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth-grade science
between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative

learning in sixth-grade science and students who experienced a low or a
moderate level of use of cooperative learning in sixth-grade science.

D 'l' [IISIISII' IIIE lI'

The suburban school district in which the study was conducted is located in
southern Oakland County, Michigan. The district has a population of more than
85,000 people. Approximately 34,000 households provide the district with more than

11,000 students. The district has 3 early childhood centers, 12 elementary schools

31
(grades K-5), 1 elementary school of choice (grades 1-5), 4 middle schools (grades
6-8), and 3 high schools (grades 9-12). The 12 elementary schools and the
elementary school of choice constituted the 13 schools that fed into the middle
schools in this study.

The district may be described as a multiethnic community. According to the
city's 1990 Census of Population and Housing, of the district’s 85,000 residents,
approximately 94% are white; 3.5% are Asian or Paciﬁc Islander; 1.8% are black;
1% are Hispanic; .2% are American Indian, Eskimo. or Aleut; and .02% are classiﬁed
as "other."

The population of students identiﬁed for this study comprised all of the sixth
graders who had graduated from the school district’s ﬁfth-grade classrooms in the
1992-93 school year. This group of students came from the 13 elementary schools
that fed into the four middle schools located in that district. All of the sixth-grade
students in the population were invited to participate in the study. Characteristics of

the study participants are presented in Chapter IV.

Instmmentation
The instruments that were used to collect the data forthis study are described

in this section.

II C 'Ii EI'I'I' I IE IS
The Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) (McGraw-Hill, 1987) was used to check

for the cognitive equivalence of the study participants. As reported by the publisher,

32
the reliability scores for the subtests of the CogAT, as determined by Kuder-
Richardson Formula 20, were as follows: Verbal Scale = .93, Quantitative Scale =
.91, and Nonverbal Scale = .93. To establish criterion-related validity, correlations
were made between the CogAT and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. The criterion-
related validity scores for the ﬁfth-grade CogAT were as follows: Verbal Scale = .80,

Quantitative Scale = .74, and Nonverbal Scale = .72.

SI I l D . . S

The Student Opinion Survey (Mitman, 1981) was administered to measure
the students' adjustment to sixth grade. Students responded to each of the 36 items
on the instrument using a three point scale (3 = positive response/true, 2 =
uncertain, 1 == negative response/false). (A copy of the instrument may be found in
Appendix A.)

The Student Opinion Survey has an internal reliability of .82 (Cronbach’s
alpha). Construct validity was established through factor analysis, which yielded
eight factors: general dislike of school, conﬁdence about academic performance,
friendship, sense of purpose, positive teacher, poor progress with school work, lack
of control over work, and positive school. The ﬁrst factor, general dislike of school,

accounted for 59% of the total variance.
Questiormaireorﬂheﬁsoomooporatiueﬁmups
The Questionnaire on the Use of Cooperative Groups (Johnson 8 Johnson,

1986) contained 33 items designed to measure the level of use of cooperative

33

learning in the classroom, as reported by the teacher. (See Appendix B for a copy
of the questionnaire). Level of use was deﬁned as the proper implementation of the
distinguishing characteristics of cooperative learning: the use of positive
interdependence, individual accountability, teaching cooperative skills, and
processing cooperative skills. In addition, the following dimensions of cooperative
Ieaming are assessed: how students are assigned to groups, the consensus-
building strategies of the groups, and strategies for evaluating students’ work.
Teachers responded to questionnaire items regarding their use of cooperative
groups using a four-point scale (C = consistently, U = usually, S = sometimes, R =
rarely). The Johnson and Johnson model of cooperative learning is the basis for
teacher training in the district under investigation.

The questionnaire was pilot tested in December 1993 to test the reliability of
the instrument and to determine whether it could be used to identify distinctly
different categories of level of use of cooperative learning. Twenty-three elementary
school teachers and 19 middle school teachers participated in the pilot test. Internal
consistency reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .89.

A total score was calculated for each teacher by summing the teacher’s
responses to Items 7 through 33 on the questionnaire. The distribution of total
scores for teachers at the elementary and middle school levels was examined.
Assuming a normal distribution, respondents can be divided into three groups (16%,
68%, 16%) in the following manner:

High level of use Of cooperative learning: Scores 2 one standard deviation
above the mean.

34

Moderate level of use of cooperative learning: Scores between + or - one
standard deviation from the mean.

Low level of use of cooperative Ieaming: Scores s one standard deviation
below the mean.

Teachers who were found to have a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming
consistently implemented the distinguishing characteristics of cooperative Ieaming
In their classrooms. Conversely, those teachers who exhibited a low level of use of
cooperative learning did not properly implement cooperative Ieaming in their

classrooms.

Qataﬁolleotionﬂmoooutes

All of the 1992-93 ﬁfth-grade teachers and all of the 1993-94 sixth.grade
teachers in the district were asked to complete the Questionnaire on the Use of
Cooperative Groups. The district’s Staff Development Department supervised this
process. They administered the teacher surveys at the school site, collected the
completed surveys, placed the surveys in sealed envelopes, and returned them to
the researcher.

The district’s representative visited the middle school site and gave the
Student Opinion Survey to the sixth-grade teachers, who were then responsible for
administering the survey to their sixth-grade students on a selected date.
Demographic data were requested on the Student Opinion Survey, in order to be
able to describe the study participants. Completed student surveys were sealed in

an envelope and returned to the representative of the Staff Development

35

Department, who then delivered the surveys to the researcher. Each middle school
participating in the study provided the researcher with students’ GPAs.
The researcher coded the data from the teacher and student surveys and the

students’ GPAs so that student, teacher, and school identities remained conﬁdential.

D I -9 I . I | .

Data from the Student Opinion Survey, the Questionnaire on the Use of
Cooperative Learning Groups, and students’ GPAs were used in testing Hypotheses
1 through 18. Data analysis included descriptive and inferential statistics using the
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, 1990) on a Maclntosh desktop
computer. Descriptive statistics included mean and standard deviation for all
relevant variables. Inferential statistics included an analysis of covariance
(ANCOVA) with students’ adjustment scores and GPAs covaried with students’
scores on the Cognitive Abilities Test for all nUll hypotheses. Probability of a Type I

error for the inferential statistics was a s .05.

Summary:

In this chapter, the hypotheses of the study were stated. The study setting
and population, as well as the instruments used to collect the necessary data, were
described. Data-collection procedures and data-analysis techniques were reviewed.

The results of the data analyses are presented in Chapter IV.

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS

IntLoduotion

The researcher’s primary purpose in this exploratory study was to determine
whether a match in the level of use of cooperative learning as the organization of
instruction in ﬁfth and sixth grades positively affects students’ adjustment to and
achievement in middle school. In addition, the researcher sought to determine (a)
whether a match between a high level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade
and in sixth grade has the greatest positive effect on students’ adjustment to and
achievement in middle school, and (b) whether a high level of use of cooperative
Ieaming in ﬁfth and/or sixth grade has a greater effect on students’ achievement in
sixth grade than do low or moderate levels of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth
and/or sixth grade.

This chapter is divided into three sections. The ﬁrst section contains a
description of the study participants. Results of the hypothesis testing are presented

in the second section. A summary of the results may be found in the third section.

36

37
D 'I' [II SIIE I" I

Ninety-four percent (34) of the school district’s 36 1992-93 ﬁfth-grade
teachers participated in this study. Two of the 36 teachers were unavailable to
participate. The 1993-94 sixth-grade teachers from three of the district’s four middle
schools agreed to participate in the study ([1 9'- 25 out of 34). With the help of these
ﬁfth- and sixth-grade teachers, data were collected on 57.4% (n = 496) of the 864
1993-94 sixth-grade students (see Tables 1 and 2). Ofthe students in the sample,
50% were males and 50% were females (see Table 3). The students ranged in age
from 11 years, 1.7 months to 13 years, 7.5 months, with a mean age of 12 years, 1.7
months. The range in ages of students who participated in this study is shown in
Table CI, Appendix C.

Table 1: Distribution of sixth-grade students participating in the study by middle
school (n = 496).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Site Frequency Percent 0:21:33?
1 184 37.1 37.1
2 184 37.1 74.2
3 128 25.8 100.0
Total 496 100.0

 

 

Table 2: Number of student participants from each elementary school in the study

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(n = 496).

Site Frequency Percent 0:23:22?
1 60 12.1 12,1
2 38 7.7 19.8
3 33 6.7 26.4
4 30 6.0 32.5
5 53 13.7 45,2
6 53 10.7 55,9
7 18 3.6 60.5
8 29 5.8 66.3
9 62 12.5 733
10 53 10.7 39,5
1 1 26 5.2 94.3
12 19 3.8 98.6
13 7 1.4 100.0

Total 496 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3: Distribution of students participating in the study by gender.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gender Frequency Percent 0:23:23?
Male 248 50.0 50.0
Female 248 50.0 100.0
Total 496 100.6

 

Note: Population of 1993-94 6th graders = 864; 51.6% (n = 446) of the total

population were males; 48.4% of the total population were females.

 

 

39

Other descriptive statistics included information on the students’ cognitive
abilities as measured by the Cognitive Abilities Test, Grade 5 (McGraw-Hill, 1987).
Students’ verbal and quantitative scores showed a wide range of cognitive abilities
in both areas. The range for verbal scores was 81.0, from the 16th percentile to the
97th percentile. The mean verbal score was 71.7, and the median score was 75.0.
The range for quantitative scores was also 81.0, from the 17th percentile to the 98th
percentile. The mean quantitative score was 70.7, and the median score was 73.0.
Cognitive abilities scores of the study participants are shown in Table 02,
Appendix C.

There was also a wide range of GPAs among the study participants. Overall
GPA was calculated for each child, as was the child’s GPA in each subject area:
language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science. The mean GPA in
language arts was 8.3, which is slightly better than a B average; the median was 9,
which is a B+ average. The mean GPA for mathematics was 7.5, which is slightly
better than a B- average; the median was 8, or a B average. The mean and median
GPAs for social studies were both 8, which were B averages. The mean GPA for
science was 7.7, close to a B average; the median was 9, or a B+ average. The
study participants’ GPAs may be found in Table C3, Appendix C.

The majority of the students were high achievers, with GPAs in the A and B
range. In language arts, 70% of the students had a B average or above. Sixty-nine

percent of the students achieved a B- average or above in mathematics. Sixth

40
percent of them had a B average or above in social studies, and 70% earned a B-
average or above In science.

The levels of use of cooperative Ieaming experienced in ﬁfth grade by the
students in this study, as reported by the ﬁfth-grade teachers, are shown in Table 4.
Fifth-grade teachers reported high, moderate, low, and no levels of use of
cooperative Ieaming. In ﬁfth grade, the majority (57%) of the study participants

experienced a moderate level of use of cooperative Ieaming across subject areas.

Table 4: Level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Use Number of Students Percent Cumulative Percent ;
Low 95 19.2 19.2
Moderate 287 57.9 77.0
High 107 21.6 98.6
No use 7 1.4 100.0
Total 496 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 5 indicates the level of use of cooperative learning the students
experienced in sixth grade, as reported by their sixth-grade teachers. A majority of
sixth graders experienced a moderate level of use of cooperative learning in the four
subject areas: language arts (71%), mathematics (74.6%), social studies (54.6%),
and science (72.8%). Sixth-grade teachers reported high, moderate, low, and no
levels of use of cooperative Ieaming In language arts, mathematics, and social

studies. No sixth-grade students experienced a low level of use of cooperative

41

Ieaming in science; teachers reported only high, moderate, and no levels of use of

cooperative Ieaming in that subject area.

Table 5: Level of use of cooperative Ieaming in sixth-grade language arts,
mathematics, social studies, and science classrooms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Use Number of Students Percent Cumulative Percent
LanguaocAns
Low 74 14.9 15.2
Moderate 356 71.8 88.3
High 57 11.5 100.0
No use 9 1.8
Total 496 100.0
Mathematics
Low 106 21.4 21.4
Moderate 370 74.6 96.2
High 19 3.8 100.0
No use 1 .2
Total 496 100.0
SooiaLStudios
Low 60 12.1 12.9
Moderate 271 54.6 71.0
High 135 27.2 100.0
No use 30 6.0
Total 496 100.0
Science
Low - 0 0 0
Moderate 361 72.8 73.1
High 133 26.8 100.0
No use 2 .4
Total 496 100.0

 

Four hundred ninety-six 1993-94 sixth-grade students completed the Student

Opinion Survey (808), which was administered to measure their adjustment to sixth

 

42
grade. Only 457 surveys were processed, due to missing data on 39 surveys.
Scores ranged from 39 to 93 points out of a possible 108 points. Each student’s
score was calculated by adding his or her responses to the 36 survey items (3 =
positive response/true, 2 = uncertain, 1 = negative response/false). The mean score
was 59.6, with a range of 55 points; the standard deviation was 11.8. The

distribution of students’ adjustment scores is shown in Table C4, Appendix C.

8 II [II II 'I l'

Analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were used to test Null Hypotheses 1
through 18. Students’ adjustment scores and GPAs were covaried with their scores
on the Cognitive Abilities Test. This technique controlled for the potential
confounding effect that a student’s cognitive ability might have had on his or her
adjustment to and achievement in sixth grade. The probability of a Type I error for
inferential statistics was 9 s .05. In the following pages, each hypothesis is restated,

followed by the results for that hypothesis.

StudentAdiustment
NuILtIypothesisJ: There is no interaction effect between the level of use of
cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming
in sixth grade on students’ adjustment to sixth grade.
Results. There was no interaction effect (:2 = .764) between the level of use
of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming in

sixth grade on students’ adjustment to sixth grade. Thus, Null Hypothesis 1 was

retained. (See Tables 6 and 7 and Figure 1.)

43

' Table 6: Interaction effect between level of use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth

and sixth grades on students’ adjustment to sixth grade. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

E!

Source of Variation Sum of Squares d1 Mean Square Sig. of E
Covariate 4016.638 2 2008.319 .000‘
Quantitative 472.242 1 472.242 .062
Verbal 686.1 14 1 686.1 14 .025"
Main Effects 77.736 4 19.434 .966

Use in 6th 20.214 2 10.107 .928

Use in 5th 61.508 2 30.754 .796
2-way interaction
Use in 5th 8 6th 248.961 4 62.240 .764
Explained 4343.335 10 434.334 .001
Residual 60258.256 447 134.806
Total 64601.592 457 141.360

’12 s .05.

Table 7: Mean adjustment scores according to the level of use of cooperative
learning in ﬁfth and sixth grades.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Use of Cooperative Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth Grade
Learning in Sixth

Grade Low Moderate High Total
'I Low 59.34 59.71 66.00 59.97
(29) (45) (5) (70)
59.50 60.21 57.53 59.71
M°d°m° (56) (183) (36) (275)
High 59.75 59.83 57.58 _ 59.41
(8) (77) (19) (104)
Total 59.47 60.04 58.25 59.68
(93) (305) (60) (458)

 

 

Note: The ﬁgures in parentheses indicate the number of students.

Adjustment Score

 

 

70 -
- o~High 5th
65 - ‘ .
60 : ._ __ _ __ - :1, ._ --. .......... . Moderate 5th
_ '77 ', ' ’7‘ Low 5th
: .'."’.'00.ooo
55 -
50 -
II—
Low Moderate High
Use of Cooperative Learning in Sixth Grade
Key: Low use of cooperative learning in 51h grade

 

 

Moderate use of cooperative Ieaming in 5th grade
.................. High use of cooperative learning in 5th grade

Figure 1: Adjustment scores in sixth grade according to the level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth and sixth grades.

45

NuIlelxoothesitLZ: There is no difference in adjustment to sixth grade

between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative

learning in ﬁfth grade and students who experienced either a low or a

moderate level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade.

Results. There was no difference (p = .796) in adjustment to sixth grade
between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth
grade and students who experienced either a low or a moderate level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade. Thus, Null Hypothesis 2 was retained. (See

Tables 6 and 7 and Figure 1.)

W: There is no difference in adjustment to sixth grade

between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative

learning in sixth grade and students who experienced either a low or a

moderate level of use of cooperative learning In sixth grade.

Results. There was no difference (p = .966) in adjustment to sixth grade
between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming in
sixth grade and students who experienced either a low or a moderate level of use

of cooperative learning in sixth grade. Thus, Null Hypothesis 3 was retained. (See

Tables 6 and 7 and Figure 1.)

StudentAcnietLement

Grades in language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science were
examined for 496 sixth-grade students. If any student was missing a grade in any
of the four subject areas, the computer did not calculate that student’s GPA.
Therefore, only 463 students were accounted for in testing Hypotheses 4 through 6,
which concerned overall GPAs. Students with missing data tended to be those who

received support services such as bilingual services, remedial reading, or special

46
education. These students were pulled out of core subjects, usually language arts
or social studies, to receive support services.

Overall Grade Point Averages:

NuIlelxpotbesisA: There is no interaction effect between the level of use of

cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming

in sixth grade on students’ GPAs in sixth grade.

Results. There was no interaction effect (a = .659) between the level of use
of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming In A

sixth grade on students’ GPAs in sixth grade. Thus, Hypothesis 4 was retained.

(See Tables 8 and 9 and Figure 2.)

NulLHypethesisj: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth grade between

students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth

grade and students who experienced either a moderate or a low level of use

of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade.

Results: There was no difference (p = .937) in GPAs in sixth grade between
students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade
and students who experienced either a low or a moderate level of use of cooperative

Ieaming in ﬁfth grade. Thus, Null Hypothesis 5 was retained. (See Tables 8 and 9

and Figure 2.)

W: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth grade between

students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming in sixth

grade and students who experienced either a moderate or a low level of use

of cooperative Ieaming in sixth grade.

Results: There was a difference (p = .000) in GPAs in sixth grade between
students who experienced a low level of use of cooperative Ieaming in sixth grade

and students who experienced moderate or high levels of use of cooperative

47

Table 8: Interaction effect between level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth

and sixth grades on students’ overall GPAs in sixth grade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ii Source of Variation Sum of Squares d1 Mean Square Sig. of E
I Covariate 852.940 2 425.470 .000*
Quantitative 92.621 1 92.621 .000”
Verbal 152.200 1 152.200 .000”
Main Effects 109.089 4 27.272 .000"
Use in 6th 105.469 2 52.735 .000‘
Use in 5th .552 2 .276 .937
2-way interaction
Use in 5th 8 6th 10.260 4 2.565 .659
Explained 972.290 10 97.229 .000"
Residual 1919.176 453 4.237 I
Total 2891 .466 463 6.245 ll
*p s .05.

Table 9: Overall GPAs according to the level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

and sixth grades.
Use of Cooperative Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth Grade
Learning in Sixth
Grade Low Moderate High Total
Low 8.51 8.45 8.75 8.49
(29) (46) (5) (80)
7.82 7.94 8.24 7.95
”meme (58) (188) (37) (283)
Hi h 6.81 7.05 7.53 7.12
9 (9) (74) (19) (102)
Total 7.93 7.80 8.06 7.86
(96) (308) (61) (465)

 

 

Note: The ﬁgures in parentheses indicate the number of students.

 

 

 

 

Grade Point Average

48

   
 

 

9.0 -
8.5 -
8.0 -
I x .
7_5 _ '° . High 5th
7.0 _ 3 Moderate 5th
- Low 5th
6.5 -
l/ -
Low Moderate High
Use of Cooperative Learning in Sixth Grade
Key: Low use of cooperative learning in 5th grade

Moderate use of cooperative learning in 51h grade
.................. High use of cooperative learning in 5th grade

Figure 2: GPAs in sixth grade according to the level of use of cooperative
learning in ﬁfth and sixth grades.

49

Ieaming In sixth grade. Thus, Null Hypothesis 6 was rejected. Follow-up tests
indicated that students who experienced a low level of use of cooperative Ieaming
in sixth grade had higher GPAs than those who experienced either a moderate or
a high level of use of cooperative learning in sixth grade. (See Tables 8 and 9 and
Figure 2.)

Language Arts:

NuILtlyootheoIsZ: There is no Interaction effect between the level of use of

cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming

in sixth grade on students’ GPAs in sixth-grade language arts.

Results: There was no interaction effect ((2 = .319) between the level of use
of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative learning in
sixth grade on students’ GPAs in sixth-grade language arts. Thus, Null Hypothesis

7 was retained. (See Tables 10 and 11 and Figure 3.)

W: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth-grade language
arts between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
Ieaming in ﬁfth-grade language arts and students who experienced either a
low or a moderate level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth-grade language
arts.

Results: There was no difference (p = .223) in GPAs in sixth-grade language
arts between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming
in ﬁfth-grade language arts and students who experienced either a low or a
moderate level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth-grade language arts. Thus, Null

Hypothesis 8 was retained. (See Tables 10 and 11 and Figure 3.)

50

Table 10: Interaction effect between level of use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth-

' and sixth-grade language arts on students’ GPAs in sixth-grade
language arts.

 

 

ir

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Variation Sum of Squares :11 Mean Square Sig. of E
Covariate 1 507.807 .000"
CognitiveNerbal 507.807
Main Effects 94.982 4 23.746 .001'
Use in 6th 84.159 2 42.079 .000"
Use in 5th 15.895 2 7.947 .223
2-way interaction
Use in 5th 8 6th 24.911 4 1.179 .319 f
Explained 627.699 9 69.744 .000"
Residual 2424.851 459 5.283
II Total 3052.550 468 6.523
*p s .05.

Table 11: Mean GPAs in sixth-grade language arts according to the level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth- and sixth-grade language arts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Use of Cooperative Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth Grade E
Learning in Sixth

Grade Low Moderate High Total
Low 8.47 8.21 8.60 8.37
(19) (38) (15) (7 2)
8.87 8.51 8.21 8.50
I M°d°"'"° (53) (210) (78) (341)
. 7.00 7.41 6.55 7.11
F'g" (18) (27) (1 1) (56)
8.41 8.36 8.10 8.31
l we" (90) (275) (104) (469)

 

 

 

 

Note: The ﬁgures in parentheses Indicate the number of students.

Grade Point Average

51

   

 

9.0 -
8.5 -
8.0 -
7.5 - \\

' \. Moderate 5th
7.0 - - Low 5th
65 Z '- High 5th

ll -
Low Moderate High
Use of Cooperative Learning in Sixth Grade
Key: Low use of cooperative Ieaming in 5th grade

 

 

Moderate use of cooperative Ieaming in 5th grade
.................. High use of cooperative Ieaming in 5th grade

Figure 3: GPAs in sixth-grade language arts according to the level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth- and sixth-grade language arts.

52
: There is no difference In GPAs in sixth-grade language
arts between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
learning in sixth-grade language arts and students who experienced either a

low or a moderate level of use of cooperative Ieaming in sixth-grade language
arts.

Results: There was a difference (p = .000) in GPAs in sixth—grade language
arts between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative learning
in sixth-grade language arts and students who experienced either a low or a
moderate level of use of cooperative Ieaming in sixth-grade language arts. Thus,
Null Hypothesis 9 was rejected. Follow-up tests indicated that low and moderate
levels of use of cooperative learning in sixth-grade language arts resulted In higher
GPAs in language arts than did a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming. (See
Tables 10 and 11 and Figure 3.)

Mathematics:

Nuﬂﬂxootbesisjo: There is no interaction effect between the level of use of

cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming

in sixth grade on students’ GPAs in sixth-grade mathematics.

Results: There was no interaction effect (:2 = .190) between the level of use
of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming In
sixth grade on students’ GPAs in sixth-grade mathematics. ,Thus, Null Hypothesis

10 was retained. (See Tables 12 and 13 and Figure 4.)

Nuﬂ_ﬂyp_otnesjs_1_1: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth-grade
mathematics between students who experienced a high level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth-grade mathematics and students who
experienced either a low or a moderate level of use of cooperative learning
in ﬁfth-grade mathematics.

Results: There was no difference (p = .450) in GPAs in sixth-grade

mathematics between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative

53

Table 12: Interaction effect between level of use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth-
and slxth-grade mathematics on students’ GPAs in sixth-grade

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mathematics.
Source of Variation Sum of Squares :11 Mean Square Sig. of E 1
Covariate
Cognitive/Quantitative 825.641 1 825.641 .000*
Main Effects 203.192 4 50.798 .000'
Use in 6th 193.755 2 96.877 .000*
Use in 5th 9.806 2 4.903 .450
2-way interaction
Use in 5th & 6th 37.714 4 9.429 .190
Explained 1066.547 9 118.505 .000“
Residual 2933.052 478 6.136
Total 3999.598 487 8.213

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*n s .05.

Table 13: Mean GPAs in sixth-grade mathematics according to the level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth- and sixth—grade mathematics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Use of Cooperative Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth Grade I
Leaming in Sixth .
Grade Low Moderate High Total
Low 7.81 6.49 5.90 6.64
(21) (65) (20) (106)
7.63 7.74 8.06 7.79
”mm“ (71) (213) (79) (363) I
High 6.00 7.12 5.00 6.05 i'
(3) (8) (8) (19)
7.69 7.44 7.43 7.49
I “’3' (95) (286) (107) (488) u

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: The ﬁgures in parentheses indicate the number of students.

Grade Point Average

  

 

8.0 -
- \L'\;
- . ;\
7.5 - f,’ ' \
- 7 \
- I" \\
- ,3 \ \
- ,’.' M Moderate 5th
7.0 - / .'
- I
_ l
I
- x
- /
6.5 - -’
6.0 : Low 5th
5.5 -
5.0 - 3 High 5th
4.5 -
l/ -
Low Moderate High
Use of Cooperative Learning in Sixth Grade
Key: Low use of cooperative learning in 5th grade

 

 

Moderate use of cooperative Ieaming in 5th grade
.................. High use of cooperative Ieaming in 5th grade

Figure 4: GPAs in sixth-grade mathematics according to the level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth- and sixth-grade mathematics.

55

Ieaming in ﬁfth-grade mathematics and students who experienced either a low or a
moderate level of use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth-grade mathematics. Thus, Null

Hypothesis 11 was retained. (See Tables 12 and 13 and Figure 4.)

NulLljyeothesis_12: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth-grade
mathematics between students who experienced a high level of use of

cooperative Ieaming in sixth-grade mathematics and students who

experienced either a low or a moderate level of use of cooperative Ieaming

in sixth-grade mathematics.

Results: There was a difference (p = .000) in GPAs in sixth-grade
mathematics between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
Ieaming in sixth-grade mathematics and students who experienced either a low or
a moderate level of use of cooperative Ieaming in sixth-grade mathematics. Thus,
Null Hypothesis 12 was rejected. (See Tables 12 and 13 and Figure 4.) Follow-up
tests indicated that a moderate level of use of cooperative learning in sixth-grade

mathematics positively affected students’ GPAs in sixth-grade mathematics.

Social Studies:

Nuﬂﬂypetheslsjj: There is no interaction effect between the level of use of

cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative learning

in sixth grade on students' GPAs in sixth-grade social studies.

Results: There was no interaction effect (a = .683) between the level of use
of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming in

sixth grade on students' GPAs in sixth-grade social studies. Thus, Null Hypothesis

13 was retained. (See Tables 14 and 15 and Figure 5.)

56

Table 14: Interaction effect between level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth-
and sixth-grade social studies on students’ GPAs in sixth-grade social

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

studies.

Source of Variation Sum of Squares d1 Mean Square Sig. of E 1
Covariate
CognitiveNerbal 758.01 1 1 758.01 1 .000”
Main Effects 20.047 4 5.012 .523

Use in 6th 18.275 2 9.138 .232

Use in 5th 5.157 2 2.579 .661
2-way interaction
Use in 5th & 6th 14.271 4 3.568 .683
Explained 792.329 9 88.037 .000" I
Residual 2735.666 439 6.232 - l
Total 3527.996 448 7.875 I

*p s .05.

Table 15: Mean GPAs in sixth-grade social studies according to the level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth- and sixth—grade social studies.

 

 

4

 

 

 

 

 

Use of Cooperative Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth Grade
Learning in Sixth . .
Grade Low Moderate Hugh Total
L 7.91 8.04 7.30 7.86
OW
(22) (26) (10) (58)
7.29 7.91 8.46 7.94
I ”Meme (31) (178) (48) (257)
Hi h 8.48 8.69 7.90 8.40
9 (33) (61) (40) (134)
7.91 8.10 8.11 8.07
| Tma' (86) (265) (98) (449)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Nets: The ﬁgures in parentheses indicate the number of students.

Grade Point: Average

57

  
 

 

9.0 -
- I. Moderate 5th
.. l’
8.5 - ’ Low 5th
8.0 - ' 1 .
- '-.H1gh 5th
7.5 —
7.0 -
II -
Low Moderate High
Use of Cooperative Learning in Sixth Grade
Key: Low use of cooperative learning in 5th grade

Moderate use of cooperative learning in 5th grade
.................. High use of cooperative learning in 5th grade

Figure 5: GPAs in sixth-grade social studies according to the level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth- and sixth-grade social studies.

58

: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth-grade social
studies between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
learning in ﬁfth—grade social studies and students who experienced either a
low or a moderate level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth-grade social
studies.

Results: There was no difference (p = .661) in GPAs in sixth-grade social
studies between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
Ieaming in fifth-grade social studies and students who experienced either a low or
a moderate level of use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth—grade social studies. Thus,
Null Hypothesis 14 was retained. (See Tables 14 and 15 and Figure 5.)

: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth-grade social
studies between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
learning in sixth-grade social studies and students who experienced either a
low or a moderate level of use of cooperative Ieaming in sixth-grade social
studies.

Results: There was no difference (p = .232) in GPAs in sixth-grade social
studies between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
Ieaming in sixth-grade social studies and students who experienced either a low or
a moderate level of use of cooperative learning in sixth-grade social studies. Thus,
Null Hypothesis 15 was retained. (See Tables 14 and 15 and Figure 5.)

Science:

Nuﬂﬁypetnesjsjﬁ: There is no interaction effect between the level of use of

cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming

in sixth grade on students' GPAs in sixth-grade science.

Results: There was no interaction effect ()2 = .805) between the level of use
of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade and the level of use of cooperative Ieaming in
sixth grade on students’ GPAs in sixth-grade science. Thus. Null Hypothesis 16 was

retained. (See Tables 16 and 17 and Figure 6.)

59

Table 16: Interaction effect between level of use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth-
and sixth—grade science on students’ GPAs in sixth-grade science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source of Variation Sum of Squares d1 Mean Square Sig. of E
Covariate 11 1 1.732 2 555.866 .000*
Cognitive/Quantitative 74.223 1 74.223 .003‘
CognitiveNerbal 281.690 1 281.690 .000"
Main Effects 30.232 3 10.077 .298
Use in 6th 5.076 1 5.076 .432
Use in 5th 26.800 2 13.400 .196
2-way interaction
Use in 5th 8. 6th 3.566 2 1.783 .805
Explained 1145.530 7 19.967 .000*
Residual 3802.835 464 8.196
Total 4948.364 471 10.506
*p s .05.

Table 17: Mean GPAs in sixth-grade science according to the level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth- and sixth~grade science.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Use of Cooperative Use of Cooperative Learning in Fifth Grade
Learning in Sixth .
Grade Low Moderate High Total
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Low
(0) (0) (0) (0)
8.08 7.73 7.81 7.81
M°d°mt° (59) (203) (78) (340)
Hi h 8.22 7.44 7.57 7.66
9 (32) (72) (28) (132)
Total 8.13 7.65 7.75 7.77
(91) (275) (106) (472)

 

 

 

Nets: The ﬁgures in parentheses indicate the number of students.

 

9.0 -

8.5 -

8.0 -

7.5 -

7.0 -

6.5 -
II -

60

Low 5th

.
\ . 0 .
. .

N2 High 5th

‘

“° Moderate 5th

 

Key:

Low Moderate High

Use of Cooperative Learning in Sixth Grade

Low use of cooperative learning in 5th grade

 

 

Figure 6:

Moderate use of cooperative learning in 5th grade

......... High use of cooperative Ieaming in 5th grade

GPAs in sixthgrade science according to the level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth- and sixth-grade science.

61

Nullhypethesisjl: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth-grade science

between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative

Ieaming in ﬁfth-grade science and students who experienced either a low or

a moderate level of use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth-grade science.

Results: There was no difference (p = .196) in GPAs in sixth-grade science
between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative learning in
ﬁfth-grade science and students who experienced either a low or a moderate level

of use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth-grade science. Thus, Null Hypothesis 17 was

retained. (See Tables 16 and 17 and Figure 6.)

W: There is no difference in GPAs in sixth-grade science
between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative
learning in sixth-grade science and students who experienced a low or a
moderate level of use of cooperative Ieaming in sixth-grade science.
Results There was no difference (p = .432) in GPAs in sixth-grade science
between students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative learning in
sixth-grade science and students who experienced either a low or a moderate level

of use of cooperative Ieaming in sixth—grade science. Thus, Null Hypothesis 18 was

retained. (See Tables 16 and 17 and Figure 6.)

Wis

A summary and interpretation ofthe results of hypothesis testing is presented
in Tables 18 through 23. Chapter V contains a summary of the study. Conclusions
are drawn from the study ﬁndings, and recommendations are made for further

research.

Table 18: Adjustment to sixth grade.

62

 

I

Null Hypotheses/Results

Interpretation

 

l

tle_1: No interaction effect between
level of use of cooperative learning in
ﬁfth and sixth grades on students’
adjustment to sixth grade: Retained

The relationship between the level of
use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth
and sixth grades had no effect on
students' adjustment to sixth grade.

 

HeZ: No effect of level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade on
students’ adjustment to sixth grade:
Retained

The level of use of cooperative
learning experienced by students in
ﬁfth grade did not affect the students’
adjustment to sixth grade.

 

 

He}: No effect of level of use of

cooperative Ieaming in sixth grade on

students' adjustment to sixth grade:
Retained

 

The level of use of cooperative
learning experienced by students in _
sixth grade did not affect the
students’ adjustment to sixth grade.

 

Table 19: Overall GPAs in sixth grade.

 

Null Hypotheses/Results

Interpretation

 

tleA: No interaction effect between
level of use of cooperative learning in
ﬁfth and sixth grades on students’
achievement in sixth grade:
Retained

The relationship between the level of
use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth

and sixth grades had no effect on the
students’ achievement in sixth grade.

 

119.5: No effect of level of use of
cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth grade on
students’ achievement in sixth grade:
Retained

The level of cooperative Ieaming
experienced by students in ﬁfth grade
did not affect the students’
achievement in sixth grade.

 

 

tie_6: No effect of level of use of
cooperative learning in sixth grade on
students’ achievement in sixth grade:
Rejected‘

 

A low level of use of cooperative
learning in sixth grade led to higher
GPAs in sixth grade than did a
moderate or high level of use.

 

*n s .05.

 

 

63
Table 20: Sixth-grade language arts.

Null Hypotheses/Results Interpretation

tlel: No Interaction effect The relationship between the level of
between level of use of cooperative use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth and
learning in ﬁfth and sixth grades on sixth grades had no effect on students’
students’ GPAs in sixth-grade GPAs in sixth-grade language arts.
language arts: Retained '

 

 

 

He_8: No effect of level of use of The level of use of cooperative learning
cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade experienced by students in ﬁfth grade
on students' GPAs in sixth-grade did not affect the students’ GPAs in
language arts: Retained sixthgrade language arts.

 

Reg: No effect of level of use of A low or a moderate level of use of
cooperative learning in sixth grade cooperative learning experienced by
on students’ GPAs in sixth-grade students in sixth grade led to higher
language arts: Rejected" GPAs in sixth-grade language arts than
did a high level of use.

 

 

 

 

*n s .05.

Table 21: Sixth-grade mathematics.

 

Null Hypotheses/Results Interpretation

 

Hell): No interaction effect The relationship between level of use
between level of use of cooperative of cooperative learning in ﬁfth and
learning in ﬁfth and sixth grades on sixth grades had no effect on students’
students’ GPAs in sixth-grade GPAs in sixth-grade mathematics.
mathematics: Retained

 

tie_1_1: No effect of level of use of The level of use of cooperative
cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade on learning experienced by students in
students’ GPAs in sixth—grade ﬁfth grade did not affect the students’
mathematics: Retained GPAs in sixth-grade mathematics.

 

H942: No effect of level of use of A moderate level of use of cooperative
cooperative learning in sixth grade learning experienced by students in
on students’ GPAs in sixth-grade sixth grade led to higher GPAs in
mathematics: Rejected‘ sixth—grade mathematics than did low
or high levels of use.

 

 

 

 

*n s .05.

Table 22: Sixth-grade social studies.

 

Null Hypotheses/Results

4!]

Interpretation

 

[10.13: No interaction effect between
level of use of cooperative learning in
ﬁfth and sixth grades on students’
GPAs in sixth-grade social studies:
Retained

 

The relationship between the level of
use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth
and sixth grades had no effect on
students’ GPAs in sixth-grade social
studies.

 

lzle_1_4: No effect of level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade on
students’ GPAs in sixth-grade social
studies: Retained

The level of use of cooperative
Ieaming experienced by students in
ﬁfth grade did not affect the students’
GPAs in sixth—grade social studies.

 

1:10.15: No effect of level of use of
cooperative learning in sixth grade on
students’ GPAs in sixth-grade social
studies: Retained

 

 

The level of use of cooperative
Ieaming experienced by students in
sixth-grade did not affect the
students’ GPAs in sixth-grade social
studies.

 

 

'1

Table 23: Sixth-grade science.

ll Null Hypotheses/Results

Interpretation

 

R946: No interaction effect between
level of use of cooperative learning in
ﬁfth and sixth grades on students’
GPAs in sixth-grade science:
Retained

The relationship between the level of
use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth
and sixth grades had no effect on
students’ GPAs in sixth-grade
science.

 

tle_11: No effect of level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade on
students’ GPAs in sixth-grade
science: Retained

The level of use of cooperative
learning experienced by students in
ﬁfth grade did not affect the students’
GPAs in sixth-grade science.

 

1:10.18: No effect of level of use of
cooperative Ieaming in sixth grade on
students’ GPAs in sixth-grade
science: Retained

 

 

 

The level of use of cooperative
Ieaming experienced by students in
sixth grade did not affect the
students’ GPAs in sixth—grade
science.

 

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS. AND REFLECTIONS

lntmduntinn
This chapter includes a summary of the rationale for and purpose of the
study, the research methods and procedures. and the results. These summaries are
followed by conclusions and discussion regarding the study ﬁndings. The chapter

ends with recommendations for further research and the researcher’s reﬂections.

Summer
Rationale

The achievement-related attitudes, values. and performance of young
adolescents deteriorate in the middle grades (Midgley et al., 1989). Researchers
have studied this decrement as it relates to the transition of elementary students into
middle school (Daniels. 1990; Feldhaufer et al., 1988; Fenzel, 1989a. 1990a, 1991;
Fenzel & Blyth, 1986; Mergendeller & Mitman. 1985; Mitman, 1981; Rounds. 1982;
Stefanich et al., 1991; Thomburg & Glider, 1984).

Role Strain Theory has been used as one framework within which to study
the effect that the change from elementary school to middle school has on students’

adjustment to and achievement in middle school (Fenzel, 1989a, 1990a, 1991;

65

66

Fenzel 8. Blyth, 1986). Role strain occurs when students hold a set of expectations
about schooling that is different from that of others with whom they interact, such as
their teachers or parents. When Role Strain Theory is applied to the transition to
middle school, the assumption is that the less role strain the student experiences,
the better will be his or her adjustment to middle school. Likewise. it is assumed that
less role strain will result in higher achievement levels in middle school. This
assumption led Fenzel and others to examine the effect that a match in student
experiences with the organization of instruction in elementary school and middle
school has on the student’s adjustment to and achievement in middle school.

In their studies, Rounds (1982), Mitman (1981), and Fenzel (1989a) found
that a match between the organization of instruction in elementary school and middle
school positively affects students’ adjustment to and achievement in middle school.
In addition to a match between the organization of instruction in the two levels of
schooling, the developmental appropriateness of the middle school program and
social support for the student by his or her peers mediate the negative effects of role
strain. Cooperative Ieaming, considered to be developmentally appropriate and
providing social support from peers, ﬁts these needs (Carnegie Council on
Adolescent Development, 1989; George et al., 1992; Lounsbury 8. Johnston, 1988;
Muth & Alvermann, 1992). The use of cooperative learning as a means to organize
instruction effectively has been shown to positively affect students’ adjustment and
achievement (Johnson et al., 1984; Mitman 8. Lambert, 1992; Slavin, 1989/90;

Stevens & Durkin, 1992).

67

Bums

In this study, the researcher combined the concepts from Fenzel’s and
Rounds’s work regarding the beneﬁts that a match between the student’s experience
with the organization of instruction in elementary school and in middle school has on
the youth’s transition to middle school with the research and literature on the use of
cooperative learning at both levels of schooling. Speciﬁcally, the researcher’s
primary purpose in this study was to determine whether a match in the level of use
of cooperative Ieaming as the organization of instruction in both ﬁfth and sixth
grades mediated a positive adjustment to sixth grade and produced a higher
achievement level in four sixth-grade subject areas (language arts, mathematics,
social studies, and science), as well as a higher overall GPA. in addition, the
researcher examined the effect that the level of use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth
grade (main effect) had on students’ adjustment, overall achievement, and
achieVement in individual subject areas in sixth grade. The effect that the level of
use of cooperative learning in sixth grade (main effect) had on students’ adjustment,
overall achievement, and achievement in the four subject areas also was studied.

The researcher assumed that, for the main effects (level of use of cooperative
Ieaming in ﬁfth grade and level of use of cooperative learning in sixth grade) to affect
students’ adjustment to and achievement in sixth grade, cooperative Ieaming must
have been properly implemented. A high level of use of cooperative learning,
deﬁned as proper implementationof the distinguishing characteristics of Johnson

and Johnson’s model of cooperative learning, represents a move from a more

68

traditional, teacher-centered classroom to a more cooperative organization of
instruction. In this cooperative organization of instruction, students are active versus
passive learners, have more opportunity to interact with peers and to participate in
decision making, and develop the values and skills necessary to assume

responsibility for their own Ieaming and the Ieaming of others.

W

Student adjustment was measured with the Student Opinion Survey (Mitman,
1981). Students’ achievement was measured by means of their GPAs.

Four hundred ninety-six of the district’s 891 1993-94 sixth graders participated
in this study. Fifty percent of the students were male, and 50% were female.
Students varied greatly in age and cognitive ability, as measured by the Cognitive
Abilities Test, Grade 5.

Thirty-four of the district’s 36 1992-93 ﬁfth-grade teachers, as well as 25 sixth-
grade teachers from three of the four middle schools in the district participated in the
study. The Questionnaire on the Use of Cooperative Groups (Johnson 8. Johnson,
1982) was used to measure the level of use of cooperative Ieaming in their
classrooms.

In March 1994, the Questionnaire on the Use of Cooperative Groups was
completed by the ﬁfth- and sixth-grade teachers ofthe 1993-94 sixth-grade students.
The Student Opinion Survey was administered to the sixth graders by theirteachers.
Each middle school provided the GPAs of students who were participating in the

study. An ANCOVA with adjustment scores and GPAs covaried with students’

69
scores on the Cognitive Abilities Test, Grade 5, was performed to test the 18 null

hypotheses. The ﬁndings are summarized in the following section.

Elndlnos

Studentadjustment. No statistically signiﬁcant relationship (interaction effect)
was found between the level of use of c00perative Ieaming in ﬁfth grade and in sixth
grade and students’ adjustment to sixth grade. The level of use of cooperative
learning in ﬁfth grade (main effect) had no signiﬁcant effect on students’ adjustment
to sixth grade. Likewise, the level of use of cooperative learning in sixth grade (main
effect) had no signiﬁcant effect on students’ adjustment to sixth grade.

StudenLaehleuement No statistically signiﬁcant relationship (interaction
effect) was found between the level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade and
in sixth grade and students’ achievement in sixth grade. The level of use of
cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth grade (main effect) did not affect students’ achievement
in sixth grade. However, the results indicated that a low level of use of cooperative
Ieaming in sixth grade (main effect) was highly and positively related to students’
overall GPAs in that grade. In addition, the results differed by subject area. When
students experienced low or moderate levels of use of cooperative Ieaming in sixth-
grade language arts (main effect), their GPAs in that subject were signiﬁcantly higher
than those of students who experienced a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming
in sixth-grade language arts. A moderate level of use of cooperative Ieaming in
sixth-grade mathematics (main effect) had a highly signiﬁcant and positive effect on

students' GPAs in that subject area. Level of use of cooperative Ieaming in sixth

70
grade social studies and science did not affect sixth-grade students’ GPAs in those

subject areas.

mm

The ﬁndings indicated that neither a match in a student’s experiences with
cooperative learning in ﬁfth and in sixth grade nor the level of use of cooperative
Ieaming in either ﬁfth or sixth grade had a signiﬁcant effect on students’ adjustment
to sixth grade. Aspects of Role Strain Theory (Fenzel, 1991) and the timing of the
study help to explain these ﬁndings regarding adjustment.

Fenzel (1989c, 1989d) and Rounds (1982) hypothesized that a match in the
student’s experiences with the organization of instruction at the elementary and the
middle school levels reduces role strain, thus creating circumstances that would
promote a positive adjustment to middle school. However. role strain also can be
reduced by factors other than the consistency of a student’s experiences with the
organization of instruction at the elementary level and the middle level of schooling.
Role strain also can be reduced by (a) the student’s personal coping resources, such
as a stable personality and attitudes and dispositions that promote effective
adaptations; (b) an environment that is a developmental match for the early
adolescent; and (c) social support from peers, teachers, and parents (Fenzel, 1991).
Isolating one aspect of Role Strain Theory such as the match in the organization of
instruction betWeen the two levels of schooling may not fully explain students’

adjustment to middle school.

71

Schools and teachers do not have control over students’ personalities,
attitudes, and dispositions that promote effective adaptations to change. In addition,
students come to school with particular attitudes about (liking/not liking) school.
These attitudes are developed through students’ past experiences with schooling,
their ability or success in particular subject areas, and/or their personal interest in the
individual subject areas. Students’ personalities, ability to cope with change, and
attitudes about school or certain subject areas might not be changed by their
experiences with cooperative learning as the organization of instruction in either ﬁfth
or sixth grade.

Creating an environmental match for the early adolescent in middle school
requires attention to a wide variety of organizational features, such as team
teaching, exploratory courses, long-term teacher/student relationships through
advisor/advisee programs, and parental involvement, as well as the use of
cooperative Ieaming. It is possible that the teachers in the three middle schools that
participated in the study had created a supportive environment for their students by
providing a developmentally appropriate program incorporating some of these
organizational features. Cooperative Ieaming is only one characteristic of a
developmentally appropriate program that has been cited in the literature on middle
school education. The ﬁndings from this study indicated that cooperative learning
was not the solitary characteristic of a developmentally appropriate program for

middle school students that promotes positive adjustment to middle school.

72

Reducing role strain through social support from signiﬁcant others (peers,
teachers, and parents) is another way to mediate a successful transition to middle
school. Even though the cooperative learning model is based on social support from
peers, in this study the level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth and sixth grades
was not related to students’ adjustment to middle school. Other characteristics of
a developmentally appropriate program, coupled with social support from signiﬁcant
others (teachers. peers, parents) and the student’s own coping mechanisms, may
have had more inﬂuence on the students’ adjustment than did the level of use of
cooperative learning.

Most studies of students’ transition are conducted within the ﬁrst two or three
months of the school year. This allows the researcher to focus on a short period of
time and examine what occurs with students during that time. Such studies help
administrators, teachers, and counselors understand what to do to prepare for a
successful transition. Data for this study were collected in March 1994. The
passage of time from September 1993, the beginning of the school year, to March
1994 may have negated the researcher’s ability to measure the effect of a match
between the level of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade and in sixth grade on

students’ adjustment to sixth grade.

StudenLAcbievement
The research ﬁndings also indicated that the relationship between the levels
of use of cooperative learning in ﬁfth grade and in sixth grade had no signiﬁcant

effect on students’ overall GPAs in sixth grade. Likewise, the level of use of

73

cooperative Ieaming in fifth grade did not signiﬁcantly affect students’ overall GPAs
in sixth grade. Conducting the study late in the school year may have negated any
measurable effect that the relationship between the level of use of cooperative
Ieaming in both ﬁfth and sixth grade had on students’ achievement in sixth grade,
as well as the effect that the level of use of cooperative Ieaming in ﬁfth grade had on
students' GPAs in sixth grade. However, it was found that the level of use of
cooperative Ieaming in sixth grade did have a signiﬁcant effect on students’ GPAs
in sixth grade. A low level of use of cooperative Ieaming yielded higher GPAs
(mean = 8.49) than did a moderate level of use (mean = 7.95) or a high level of use
(mean = 6.72). Students who experienced low or moderate levels of use of
cooperative Ieaming in sixth-grade language arts had signiﬁcantly higher GPAs in
that subject than did those who experienced a high level of use. Students who
experienced a moderate level of use of cooperative learning in sixth-grade
mathematics had signiﬁcantly higher GPAs in that subject than those who
experienced low or high levels of use. Overall, students in moretraditional
classrooms, in which teachers had not correctly implemented a cooperative Ieaming
organization of instruction, achieved higher GPAs.

Results in the achievement portion of this study will be discussed (a) by
examining the teachers’ and students’ abilities to generalize a relatively new
organization of instruction, cooperative learning, to the traditional classroom setting;
(b) by examining the congruency of the teaching objective with the mode of

instruction selected by the teacher; and (c) by reﬂecting on the norms that need to

74
be in place within schools in order to support the implementation of. a new
organization of instruction.

Lotan, Cohen, and Holthuis (1994) suggested that certain sociological
conditions must be met before the cognitive beneﬁts of cooperative Ieaming as the
organization of instruction can occur. These authors believed that the teacher must
delegate authority to the students, that the individuals within the group must be
responsible for themselves and for the performance of other group members, and
that groups must be small in size. Kohn (1996) believed that cooperative
classrooms are guided by a set of values that promote deep understanding of the
Ieaming, emphasize social and intellectual growth, and are centered on meeting the
needs of the individual child. In these classrooms, students will interact with each
other and share what they are learning. Teachers shifting to cooperative Ieaming,
which is a more student-centered than teacher-centered organization of instruction,
need to pay attention to these sociological conditions in the classroom. if the values
and skills necessary to support a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming are not in
place, a low to moderate level of use of cooperative Ieaming may be a more
successful organization of instruction because teachers and students will be more
familiar with the values and skills of a traditional organization of instruction, thereby
allowing them to decode their respective roles more easily. When a student
understands his or her role as student, role strain is reduced and the youngster may

have a greater chanceto beneﬁt cognitively in the classroom.

75

There are two schools of thought regarding the content of group work (Lotan
et al., 1994). Some teachers use cooperative groups to provide practice on basic
skills. These typically are tasks that an individual can complete, such as practicing
addition facts, telling time, writing a descriptive paragraph, and memorizing the state
capitals. Other teachers assign tasks to cooperative groups that require the
information, knowledge, and problem-solving abilities of all the group members. In
this study, teachers were asked how they organized the groups (heterogeneous
versus homogeneous grouping, teacher-selected versus student-selected, strategies
for creating positive interdependence), but they were not asked to report on the
content of the group work. The appropriateness of the teaching objective assigned
as group work may be a factor in determining whether a low, moderate, or high level
of use of cooperative learning yields higher GPAs in sixth grade. lf teachers were
assigning tasks to students that were routine (practice, memorization), the need for
a high level of use of cooperative Ieaming, in which students could not succeed
without relying on each other, would be diminished. Teachers participating in this
study who reported low or moderate levels of use of cooperative Ieaming in
language arts and mathematics might have selected content that did not require a
high level of use of cooperative learning. Because routine tasks do not require the
same positive interdependence as do complex tasks, the teachers with a low level
of use of cooperative learning might have created a classroom environment in which
the content and the organization of instruction were congruent. This congruency

allows students to understand and implement their role as learner more successfully.

76

Grading is one way in which teachers communicate to students which
behaviors, knowledge, and skills are valued in a classroom. In this study, sixth-
grade teachers tended to use a traditional grading scale to evaluate the content
learned in the cooperative learning groups, rather than grading or giving incentives
for group products or group process skills. This traditional method of grading may
have undermined the need for collaboration as the norm in the classroom, thus
creating a classroom environment in which a low to moderate level of use of
cooperative learning would yield higher GPAs.

The organization of instruction in the classroom exists within a larger system
called the school (Bliss, 1989). The larger organizational structure includes such
factors as a clear and focused mission, policies or practices (e.g., student grouping,
scheduling, grading, awards, assessments), instructional leadership, the collegiality
of the staff, and support for professional growth. These organizational features
either support or hinder a particular organization of instruction in the classroom.

Students who experienced low or moderate levels of use of cooperative
learning might have had higher levels of achievement because the organization of
the school supported an individualistic, more traditional organization of instruction.
At the time this study was conducted, it was unclear whether a cooperative
organization of instruction was valued in the mission and philosophy of the schools.
Without a clearly articulated mission and philosophy that includes emphasis on a
cooperative organization ofthe classroom, teachers might not valuethe ongoing use

of cooperative learning as a means to organize curriculum, instruction, and

77

assessment If the cooperative organization of instruction is not valued, teachers will
not push themselves to develop the skills necessary to implement this type of
organization. Principals play a vital leadership role in encouraging the
implementation of new organizations of instruction (Bliss, 1989). Department chairs
also provide leadership in implementing new teaching practices through modeling
the new practices and team teaching (Bliss, 1989).

In 1994, interdisciplinary teaming, in which groups of teachers were assigned
longer blocks of time with students to deliver integrated curricular units, was not in
place in the school district where this study was conducted. These longer blocks of
time would have allowed teachers more ﬂexibility in implementing cooperative
Ieaming. Traditional 45—minutes-per-class schedules do not promote the use of
cooperative learning, particularly when the content of the group work is complex.
Also in 1994, grading tended to be based on individual performance on paper/pencil
tests such as ﬁll-in-the-blank or multiple-choice questions and short essays. When
this type of grading/assessment practice is used, it can diminish the need to develop
an overarching cooperative organization of instruction.

Bliss (1989) found that the collegial nature of the school is signiﬁcant in terms
of implementing a new organization of instruction. Not only is support from the
principal and department chair important, but implementation also is affected by
strong collegial relationships among staff members. Teachers need to see at least
one colleague using cooperative learning, they require time to work together on

planning curriculum and instruction, and they need to develop materials

78

collaboratively to implement cooperative learning in their classrooms. At the time of
this study, teachers who had been trained in cooperative Ieaming were not
supported in their implementation at the building level through increased planning

and collegial time.

RecommendationsioLEurtbeLBeseaLch

Based on the results of this study, the following recommendations are made
for further research.

1. The current study should be replicated closer to the beginning of a
school year (the end of September or early October) in order to negate the effects
that the passage of time may have had on the effect of_ the level of use of
cooperative learning in ﬁfth and/or sixth grade on students’ adjustment to and
achievement in sixth grade.

2. An ethnographic study should be conducted, involving fewer students
and teachers, with more intensive observation ofthe organization of instruction in the
classrooms. The design should include observation by an expert in cooperative
Ieaming to determine whether (a) the sociological conditions of the classroom
support a cooperative organization of instruction; (b) the content of the group work
is appropriate; (c) curriculum, instruction, and assessment practices are aligned with
the level of use of cooperative learning; and (d) the school norms support a
cooperative organization of instruction In the classroom.

3. Proper implementation (high level of use) of the distinguishing

characteristics of Johnson and Johnson’s model of cooperative Ieaming was the

79

independent variable in this, study. The amount of time a student spends in
cooperative groups was not considered. In the future, it may be useful to study what
constitute examples of cooperative Ieaming. It would also be helpful to study the
effect that the amount of time a student spends experiencing cooperative Ieaming
as the organization of instruction has on his or her adjustment to and achievement
in sixth grade.

4. Overall GPAs were calculated by adding a student’s grades in four
subject areas: language arts, mathematics, social studies, and science. Thirty-four
students who received bilingual services, special education services, or remedial
services were pulled out of one of these core subject areas to receive those
services, thus eliminating them from the achievement portion of the study. Research
on cooperative learning has indicated that the greatest gains in achievement are
made by low-achieving students. It is possible that students who beneﬁt the most
from a high level of use of cooperative learning were eliminated from this study.
Therefore, further research should be conducted to determine the effect that the
level of use of cooperative Ieaming has on the GPAs of low-achieving sixth graders

who receive special services such as bilingual services and special education.

Reﬂections
The Concept of level of use focuses on whether or not the teacher is
technically correct when implementing a new teaching strategy. in this study, proper
implementation of the distinguishing characteristiCs of a particular model of

cooperative Ieaming did not yield better adjustment to or higher achievement in

80

middle school. This indicates that administrators need to focus on a “bigger picture"
when teachers are implementing a new organization of instruction at the classroom
level. The big picture includes understanding the individual students’ attitudes and
dispositions toward change to a new level of schooling. This may require
communication between staff at both levels of schooling, elementary and middle
school. The big picture also includes understanding the administrator’s role in
creating an organization of instruction at the school level that supports the
implementation of a cooperative organization of instruction at the classroom level.
The administrator needs to involve teachers in developing a school mission that
values and supports a cooperative organization of instruction. Schedules,
interdisciplinary teaming, and assessment practices need to be designed to support
the use of cooperative learning. Administrators need to assist teachers in ﬁnding
time to plan together and reﬂect on their attempts to carry out cooperative Ieaming
in the classroom. In addition, teacher evaluation and/or supervision practices need
to promote the use of cooperative groups.

As administrators supervise staff who are moving toward a more cooperative
organization of instruction, they need to help teachers select appropriate objectives
for group work. They need to encourage teachers to develop assessment practices
that promote cooperation. Group products and the students’ behavior in the group
become part of the assessment process. The administrator needs to move away

from a narrow focus on proper or correct implementation of a model of instruction to

81

creating a school environment and practices that support teachers’ efforts to change

at the classroom level.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

STUDENT OPINION SURVEY

82

 

 

 

 

 

STUDENT OPINION SURVEY
Name Date
Middle School Gender (MIF)
5th grade teacher:
6th grade team: Birthdate: Age

 

The questions below are aimed at ﬁnding out how you feel about your school. Your
answers will help us to study what happens when people go from elementary school
to middle school. As the study could lead to important changes in education, we
need your honest answers. We promise that what you say will remain a secret
between the researchers and you; no one else will see what you say.

Each question will be read out loud. After hearing the question, please answer it as
quickly as possible.

Thank you very much for your part in this study.

 

Please respond to each question below by marking it with an X. If you feel the
statement is true, mark the space after T. If you are uncenain. mark the space after
U, and if it is false, then mark the space after F. For example, if you feel happy at
school, then you would mark your questionnaire as follows:

I feel happy at school. T[X] U[] F[]

1. I look forward to coming to school each day. T[] U[] F[]
2. My teachers take into account what I need and what

I’m interested in. Tl] Ull F[]
3. I wish we were free to do things our own way instead

of being told exactly what to do. T[] U[] F[]
4. A lot of what we are supposed to do at this school

doesn’t make sense. Tl] Ul] F[]
5. My teachers are helping me to learn and understand. T[] U[] F[]
6. In school lam often able to work with people I like. T[] U[] F[]
7. I usually feel quite relaxed at school. T[] U[] F[]
8. I do not really enjoy anything about school. T[] U[] F[]
9. My teachers really support me. I T[] U[] F[]

10.
11.

12.
13.

14.
15.
16.
17.
18.

19.
20.
21.
22.

23.

24.
25.
26.

27.
28.

29.
30.

83
My teachers are friendly towards me.

When exams are due, I feel quite conﬁdent that I
will do well.

I like my teachers.

I get upset when my teachers don’t come to help me
when I need it.

I am quite satisﬁed with how my schoolwork is going.

I am accepted and liked by most of the kids in my class.
I like school better than most other kids do.

My teachers are friendly towards me.

My teachers take into account what I need and what
I am interested in.

At this school I don’t have as many friend as I would like.

Dun'ng exams I worry that I might fail or do badly.
A good deal of schoolwork is just to keep us busy.

The way this school is run leaves me so confused, I
don't know where to turn.

I tense up when the teachers ask me questions in
class discussion.

In this school people like me don’t have any luck.
Students have input into what happens in this school.

I wish we were free to do things our own way instead
of being told exactly what to do.

I am making good progress with my work.

I think that people like me will never do well at this
school no matter how hard we try.

During exams I worry a lot about how I’m doing.

I like school better than most other kids.

TI]

TI]
TI]

TI]
TI]
TI]
TI]
TI]

TI]
TI]
TI]
TI]

TI]

TI]
TI]
TI]

TI]
TI]

TI]
TI]
Tl]

Ull

U[]
U[]

U[]
Ull
U[]

U”
Ull

Ul]
Ull
Ul]
Ul]

Ull

Ul]
Ull

Ull

Ull
Ull

Ull

Ull
Ull

F[]

F[]
F[]

F[]
F[]
F[]
F[]
F[]

F[]
F[]
F[]
F[]

F[]

F[]
I:[]
F[]

F[]
F[]

F[l
F[]
F[]

31.

32.

33.

35.
36.

34

Nobody in this school seems to notice me or care
what happens to me.

It is hard for me to do as well at school as my parents
and teachers expect.

Normally I feel quite relaxed at school.
My teachers are friendly towards me.
I am often afraid I will make a fool of myself in class.

I’m happy to be going to this school.

TI]

TI]
TI]
TI]
TI]
TI]

Ull

Ull
Ull
Ull
Ul]
Ull

F[]

F[]
F[]
F[]
F[]
F[]

APPENDIX B

QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE USE OF COOPERATIVE GROUPS

85
QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE USE OF COOPERATIVE GROUPS

Name:

 

School: Grade:

 

Subject Area(s) in Which You Use Cooperative Learning:

 

 

What percentage of total class time do you spend in cooperative learning groups per
week? (Note: Think of a student's total exposure to cooperative learning groups per
week, subject areas combined.)

No class time

Less than 10% of the time
10%-25% of the time
26%-50°/o of the time
51%-75% of the time
More than 76% of the time

9’9”?wa

If you do not use cooperative learning groups (response 1) in your classroom, DO
NOT answer questions 7-33. If you use cooperative learning groups in your
classroom (responses 2-6) please continue with question 7 and complete this
questionnaire.

 

Please complete the following information on your use of cooperative Ieaming
groups. Circle the answers for each statement.

HOW DO YOU ASSIGN STUDENTS TO COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS?

 

Key: C = Consistently U = Usually S = Sometimes R = Rarely

 

7. Students choose who they want to work with. C U S R
8. I assign students of the same ability to a group. C U S R
9. I assign students of different abilities to a group. C U S R

C U S R

10. Students are randomly assigned to groups.

86

WHAT METHODS DO YOU USE TO ESTABLISH POSITIVE GOAL
INTERDEPENDENCE IN GROUPS?

 

Key: C = Consistently U = Usually S = Sometimes R = Rarely

 

11. Each member in the group must reach their goal in
order for the group to reach their goal (e.g., one paper
from the group). C U S R

12. Bonus points are added or some other reward is given
to all group members when everyone in the group

achieves the established criteria. C U S R
13. Group members are assigned roles In order to

complete a task (e.g., recorder). C U S
14. Groups are in competition with other groups. C U
15. Students establish a mutual identity through a name,

identity, ﬂag, or motto. C U S R
16. Groups are placed in a fantasy situation in order to

complete a task. C U S
17. Group members share one set of materials. C U S

BEFORE STUDENTS BEGIN WORKING ON AN ASSIGN-

MENT, DO YOU TELL THEM HOW THEIR WORK WILL

BE EVALUATED (e.g., CRITERIA OR COMPARISON

TO PEERS)? (Item 18) c u s R

WHEN SOLVING PROBLEMS OR ANSWERING QUESTIONS, HOW DO
STUDENTS REACH CONSENSUS IN COOPERATIVE GROUPS?

 

Key: C = Consistently U = Usually S = Sometimes R = Rarely

 

19. Students make little attempt to reach consensus
and turn in separate answers. C U S R

20. A few leaders dominate the group and their point of
view is accepted without challenge. C U S R

87

21. Students argue their point of view and change their

minds only on the basis of data. C U S R

22. All students share information and agree on one

answer quickly. C U S R

HOW DO YOU PROMOTE THE MASTERY OF INTERPERSONAL AND GROUP

SKILLS BY STUDENTS?

 

Key: C = Consistently U = Usually S = Sometimes R = Rarely

 

23. Students are told the social skills they need to
use in cooperative groups but little feedback is

given to them on their use. C U S R

24. The social skill is deﬁned and practiced. Groups
are observed and given feedback on them.

25. The social skill is deﬁned, practiced, and monitored. C

HOW IS GROUP PROCESSING IN THE COOPERATIVE LEARNING GROUPS

CONDUCTED IN YOUR CLASSROOM?

U

 

Key: C = Consistently U = Usually S = Sometimes R = Rarely

 

26. My schedule does not allow time for groups to process. C

27. My students discuss how well they worked with each

other. C
28. l have several structured ways for students to
process in groups (e.g., rating scale continuum). C

29. l structure the processing as a part of the lesson and
students turn in processing assignments with their
other work. C

U

U

S

88

HOW DO YOU EVALUATE STUDENTS’ WORK?

 

Key

C = Consistently U = Usually S = Sometimes

 

30.

31.

32.

33.

Norm-referenced evaluation system where individual
students’ performance ls compared to the performance
of other students.

Criteria-referenced evaluation system where students’
individual work is compared against a preset criteria.

Criteria-referenced evaluation system where a single
group’s product is compared against a preset criteria.

Criteria-referenced evaluation system where students
are evaluated on the basis of individual work and the
combined efforts of the members of their group, using
a preset criteria (e.g., bonus points).

R = Rarely

C U S R
C U S R
C U S R
C U S R

THANK YOU FOR COMPLETING THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. PLEASE RETURN
THIS QUESTIONNAIRE TO

 

APPENDIX C

RAW DATA

89

Table C1: Ages (in months) of students participating in the study.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

# of Months Frequency PSrcent Cumulative Percent

134 1 .2 .2 jI

137 5 1.0 1.2 I

138 15 3.0 . 4.2

139 15 3.0 7.3

140 35 7.1 14.3

141 45 9.1 23.4

142 29 5.8 29.2

143 38 7.7 , 36.9

144 38 7.7 44.6

145 31 6.3 50.8

146 33 6.7 57.5 %

147 26 5.2 62.7

148 24 4.8 67.5

149 31 6.3 73.8

150 21 4.2 78.0

151 27 5.4 83.5

152 25 5.0 88.5

153 16 3.2 91.7

154 10 2.0 93.8

155 8 1.6 95.4

156 6 1.2 96.6

157 4 .8 97.4

158 3 .6 98.0

159 3 .6 98.6

160 2 .4 99.0 I
I 161 2 .4 99.4
I 162 2 .4 99.8 7
I 165 1 .2 100.0 I
I Total 496 100.0 I

 

 

 

 

Mean = 146.069, Median = 145.00, Range = 31 months

Table C2: Distribution of scores on the Cognitive Abilities Test, 5th Grade.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Verbal Score Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
16 1 .2 .2
I 24 1 .2 .4
I 27 1 .2 .6
I 28 2 .4 1.0
I 29 2 .4 1.4 .
I 31 3 .6 2.0
32 1 .2 2.2
. 33 1 .2 2.4
35 2 .4 2.8 ||
37 3 .6 3.4 I
39 1 .2 3.6
I 40 3 .6 4.2
I 41 3 .6 4.8
43 5 1.0 5.8 ’ II
44 2 .4 6.3
45 4 .8 7.1
48 4 .8 7.9
I 49 4 .8 8.7
I 51 4 .8 9.5
52 9 1.8 11.3 I.
53 4 .8 12.1
55 6 1.2 13.3
56 10 2.0 15.3
57 7 1.4 16.7
59 6 1.2 17.9
60 6 1.2 19.2
61 11 2.2 21.4
63 18 3.6 25.0
64 7 1.4 26.4
65 14 2.8 29.2 I
67 10 2.0 31.3 I

 

 

Table C2: Continued.

91

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Verbal Score Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent I
68 13 2.6 33.9
69 23 4.6 38.5
71 16 3.2 41.7
72 19 3.8 45.6
73 21 4.2 49.8
75 22 4.4 54.2 4
76 16 3.2 57.5
77 20 4.0 61.5
79 24 4.8 66.3
80 15 3.0 69.4
81 24 4.8 74.2
83 19 3.8 78.0
84 15 3.0 81.0
85 19 3.8 84.9
87 15 3.0 87.9
88 18 3.6 91.5
89 13 2.6 94.2
91 9 1 .8 96.0
92 7 1 .4 97.4
93 5 1.0 98.4
95 3 .6 99.0
96 2 .4 99.4
97 3 .6 100.0

Total 496 100.0

 

 

Mean = 71.655, Median = 75.00, Range in Verbal Scores = 81

Table C2: Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quantitative Score Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
17 1 .2 .2
22 1 .2 .4
25 3 .6 1.0
27 2 .4 1.4 1
30 1 .2 1.6
I 32 2 .4 2.0 4
I 33 1 .2 2.2 I
I 35 3 .6 2.8
I 37 2 .4 3.2
38 5 1.0 4.2
I 40 4 .8 5.0
42 2 .4 5.4
I 43 1 .2 5.6
I 45 6 1.2 6.9
I 47 5 1.0 7.9
I 48 1 .2 8.1
I 50 10 2.0 10.1
I 51 1 .2 10.3
I 52 15 3.0 13.3
53 11 2.2 15.5
55. 9 1.8 17.3
.I 56 1 .2 17.5
57 8 1.6 19.2
58 14 2.8 22.0
60 14 2.8 24.8
I 62 16 3.2 28.0
I 63 17 3.4 31.5
65 18 3.6 35.1
67 11 2.2 37.3
68 13 2.6 39.9
70 14 2.8 42.7

 

 

 

 

 

 

93

Table CZ: Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quantitative Score Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent

72 23 4.6 47.7
73 21 4.2 51.6

'I 75 25 5.0 56.7
77 24 4.8 61.5
78 28 5.6 67.1
80 26 5.6 72.8
82 20 4.0 76.8
83 18 3.6 80.4
85 16 3.2 83.7
86 1 .2 83.9 9
87 10 2.0 85.9 I
88 23 4.6 90.0
90 16 3.2 93.8
92 1 1 2.2 96.0
93 8 1.6 97.6
95 ' 7 1 .4 99.0
97 4 .8 99.8
09 1 .2 100.0

L. Total 496 100.0

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mean = 70.702, Median = 73.00, Range in Quantitative Scores = 81

94

Table C3: Students’ GPAs in four subject areas.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Langu=age Arts
GPA Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
E 7 1.4 1.4
D- 1 .2 1.6
D 12 2.4 4.1
0+ 10 ' 2.2 6.4
C- 10 2.0 8.4
C 33 6.7 15.2
0+ 28 5.6 20.9
B- 34 6.9 27.9
B 92 ' 18.5 46.8
8+ 66 13.3 60.4
A- 84 16.9 77.6
A 105 . 21.6 99.2
A+ 4 .8 100.0
Missing 9 1.8
Total 496 100.0
Mean = 8.3
Median = 9.0

Range = 12 points

 

95
Table C3: Continued.

ﬂ -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mathematics
GPA Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
E 15 3.0 3.0
D- 9 1.8 4.8
D 13 2.6 7.5
0+ 12 2.4 9.9
C- 32 6.5 16.3
C 43 8.7 25.0
C+ 27 5.4 30.4
B- 42 8.5 38.9
B 102 20.6 59.5
8+ 70 14.1 73.6
A- 61 12.3 85.9
A 67 13.5 99.4
A+ 3 .6 100.0
Total 496 100.0
Mean = 7.458
Median = 8.0

Range = 12 points

 

 

96
Table C3: Continued.

Social Studies

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I GPA Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
I E 8 1.6 1.7 I
I D- 9 1.8 3.6 I
I D 8 1.7 5.4
I 0+ 13 2.6 8.2
I c- ‘ 15 3.0 11.4
I c 32 6.5 18.2
c+ 37 7.5 26.2 I
B- 45 9.1 35.8
B 71 14.3 51.1
3+ 42 8.5 60.1
A- 75 15.1 76.2
A 99 20.0 97.4
A+ ' 12 2.4 100.0
Missing 30 6.0
Total 496 100.0
Mean = 8.047
Median = 8.0

Range = 12 points

97
Table C3: Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Science
GPA Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent
E 23 4.6 4.7
11 2.2 6.9 I

o 20 4.0 11.0 ;

0+ 7 1.4 12.4 I
.. c- 28 5.6 18.1 _

c 29 5.8 24.0 }

B- 36 7.3 36.0

B 67 13.5 49.7 I

8+ 55 11.1 60.9 I

A- 71 14.3 ’ 75.4

A 116 23.4 99.0 I

A+ 5 1.0 100.0 I

Missing 5 1.0

Total 496 100.0 I
1 Total 496 100.0 I
.__ __ -_____.____,______*w _ ___I
Mean = 7.731
Median = 9.0

Range = 12 points

98

Table C4: Distribution of scores on the Student Opinion Survey.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Score Frequency Percent Cumulative Percent I
38 2 .4 .4
39 1 .2 .6
40 4 .8 1.4
41 3 .6 2.1
42 9 1.8 3.9
43 10 2.0 6.0
44 8 1.6 7.6
45 15 3.0 10.7
46 12 2.4 13.2
47 16 3.2 16.5
48 13 2.6 19.2
49 15 3.0 22.3
50 16 3.2 25.6
51 14 2.8 28.5
52 16 3.2 31.8
53 9 1.8 33.6
54 19 3.8 37.5
55 18 3.6 41.2
56 8 1.6 42.9
57 9 1.8 44.7
58 19 3.8 48.7
59 20 4.0 52.4
60 23 4.6 57.5
61 14 2.8 60.4
62 16 3.2 63.7
63 16 3.2 67.0
64 14 2.8 69.9
65 9 1.8 71.8
66 12 2.4 74.2
67 9 1.8 76.1
68 9 1.8 77.9

 

 

Table C4: Continued.

 

99

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standard Deviation = 11.772

 

 

 

I Score =_F-requency Percent Cumulative Percent
69 9 1.8 79.8
70 8 1.6 81.4
71 6 1.2 82.7
72 15 3.0 85.8
73 9 1.8 87.6
74 3 .6 88.2
75 5 1.0 89.3
76 8 1.6 90.9 :I
77 6 1.2 92.2 I
78 4 .8 93.0
79 3 .6 93.6
80 5 1.0 94.6
81 3 ..6 95.3
82 1 .2 95.5
83 1 .2 95.7
84 1 .2 95.9
85 4 .8 96.7 I
86 4 .8 97.5 I
88 2 .4 97.9 I
89 1 .2 98.1 I
90 2 .4 1 98.6
91 3 .6 99.2
92 1 .2 99.4
93 3 .6 100.0
Missing 1 1 2.4
Total 496 100.0 I
Mean = 59.639
Median = 59.00
Range = 55.00

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

Alexander, W. M. (1987). Toward schools in the middle: Progress and
problems. JoumaLommlculumandﬁunenrision. 2(4). 324-325.

Bandura, A. (1986). SeclaLteundatioanougManiactionsAsocial
eeenltluetheery. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

BempeCha" Ju &We"S.A- 3- (1989) ILendsandJssueslnmbamandmmnty
education 1989 E I' II I' | I .
Washington. DC: Ofﬁce of Educational Research and Improvement.

Berg-Cross, L., & Flanagan, R. (1988). Effects of an orientation program on
mobile transfer students. JeumaLeLEamLAdeleseenee, 8(3), 311-324.

Bliss, T. (1989). The use of group work In high school social studies. Iheenr
andBeseaLcthSmiaIEducation. 11(4), 303- 315.

Brookover, W. B., & Erickson, E. L. (1975). Seeielegy_ef_edueatien. Homewood,
IL: Dorsey Press.

Campbell, D.T., &Stanley, J. C. (1966). ExperimentaLandcuaSiaexeerimemm
designsjouesearch. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Campbell, E. (1989, September). In Saskatchewan-Its middle years. Middle
SchooLJoumaL 1142.

Carnegie Council on Adolescent Development, Task Force on Education of

Young Adolescents. (1989). WWO
teLtneZJsteentury. Washington, DC. Author.

Cawelti, G. (1988, November). Middle schools a better match with early
adolescent needs. ASCQQumeulumJledate, 1-12.

W015. (1987). New York: McGraw-Hill.

100

101

Cohen, E. G. (1986). Qesigningsmumrkzﬂrategiesmuhehetemgeneous
elassmem. New York: Teachers College Press.

Costar, J. W. (1985). Teacher-advisor In the middle school guidance program.
MichiganMddleﬁnthJQumaL 11(1), 14-16.

Crockett, L. J., Petersen, A. C., Graber, J. A., Schulenberg, J. E., & Ebata, A
(1989). School transition and adjustment during early adolescence.
JoumaLoLEamLAdolescence. 9(3). 181-210.

Cuban, L. (1989). At-risk students: What teachers and students can do.
EducationaLLeadeLShin. 45(3), 29—33.

Daniels, L. G. (1990). WWW
WWW. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association, Austin, TX.

Dombusch, S. M., Peterson, A. c., &Hetherington, E. M. (1991). Projecting the

future of research on adolescence. ,leumeleLReseamLAdeleseenee,
1(1), 7-17.

Duran, P. E., & Cherrington, A. (1992). The effects of cooperative group work
versus independent practice on the learning of some problem-solving
strategies. SchoelﬁclenmndMathematlcs. 92(2).

Eccles, J. S., 8 Midgley, C. (1989). Stage environment ﬁt: Developmentally
appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames

(Eds.), BeseammelvaﬂomlneducaﬁonNol. 3). New York: Academic
Press.

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C. &Adler, T. F. (1984). Grade-related changes in the
school environment. Effects on achievement motivation. In J. Nicholls &

M. L. Maehr (Eds) AdxancesjmmmmaﬂmndjmiemmemNol. 3, pp.
283-331). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Farivar. s. (1991). W. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.

Farivar, S. (1993). Group work: Small group productivity. Research review.
Seclalﬂudlesﬁexiew. 34(2), 58-63.

102

Feldhaufer, H., Midgley, C., 8. Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher, and
observer perceptions of the classroom environment before and after the

transition to junior high school. WEDGE. 8(2). 133-
156.

Felzer, R. D., Ginter, M. 8. Primavera, J. (1982). Primary prevention during
school transitions: Social support and environmental structure. American
JoumaLotCnmmuninLESIIchology. 10. 270-290.

Fenzel, L. M. (1989a). WW0:
duﬂngjmnmmgmlddlsicbml. Research paper presented at the
biennial meeting of the Society of Research In Child Development, Kansas

City: MO.

Fenzel, L. M. (198%) W
I‘ q‘Il I0 IOOOHIOIII’O III-0‘ IIIOO‘ I00.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Fenzel, L. M. (1989c). Role strains in early adolescence: A model for

investigating school transition stress. JQUIDaLQLEaﬂLAdQIemnm. 9(1-
2), 13-33.

Fenzel, L. M. (1989d). Role strains and the transition to middle school:

Longitudinal trends and sex differences. JoumalmEadyAdolescence,
9(3). 21 1-226.

Fenzel, L. M. (1990a). WWW
ammﬁmﬁmmeammummmmmm Research
report presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on
Adolescence, Atlanta. GA.

Fenzel, L. M. (1990b). W
.00- II Ana-v OI- 'l'A.- I0 I0 “- II I0 al.
Research report presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for
Research on Adolescence, Atlanta, GA.

Fenzel, L. M. (1991). WW
I :5“ III. ‘I ‘ I0 o . 0H: In H‘ ‘I .: Paper
presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research on
Adolescence, Seattle, WA.

103

Fenzel, L. M., & Blyth, D. A. (1986). Individual adjustment to school transitions:
An exploration of the role of supportive peer relations. JeumaLeLEale
Adolescence 5(4). 1315-329

Gardner, P. & Carpenter, R. (1985). AhsedeaaasasmenLteLtIahaitiehjem

elementamasheelajenudemheels. Vancouver: Educational Research
Institute of British Columbia.

George, P. s. (1983). IhelheestshedLBevendsﬂestiIIeneaa. Columbus,
OH: National Middle School Association.

George, P. S. (1988). Education 2000: Which way is the middle school?
leaﬂnttisusn. 62. 14-17.

George, P. S., Stevenson, C., Thomason, J., & Beane, J. (1992). Ihemiddie
WW. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development

Georgiady, N. P., & Romano, L. G. (1973). Do you have a middle school?
El I' II I l' .

Hargreaves, A. (1986). Wed:
Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press.

Harris, D. J. Dyer, P. A., &Tracz, S. M. (1988). WWW
expenensiheausssaeinsshedmatzﬂakstudehta.

Paper presented at
the annual meeting of the California Educational Research Association,
San Diego, CA.

Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. E. (1987). Iaking

energeetehenge Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.

Jackson, A. W., & Hombeck, D. W. (1989). Educating young adolescents: Why

we must restructure middle grade schools. Amsﬂsanﬁsxshelegisl. 45.
831-836.

James, C. B. (1989). Cooperative Ieaming in the classroom. SeeiaLStudiee,
89(3), 98-101.

Johnson, D. W., &Johnson, R. T. (1986). euestmmammmm
W. Minneapolis, MN: Cooperative Learning Center.

104

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989l90). Social skills for successful group
work. EdusatiehaLLeadeIahie. 41(4)

Johnson, D. W. Johnson, R. T. Holubec, E. J., &Roy. P. (1984). Qirdeeoj

WWW Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Johnson. J. H., & Markle, G. C. (1986).
mm Columbus, OH: National Middle School Association.

Jones, R. M. (1984). Easing the transition from elementary school to middle
school education. DiaaeIIatieeAbatIastelntematienaL 45 1976A.

Kagan, S. (1989l90). The structural approach to cooperative learning.
EdusatienaLLeadeIahie. 41(4), 12-15.

Kohn, A. (1996). °
Alexandria, VA. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Li, A. K. &Adamson, G. (1992). Secondary students' preferred Ieaming style:

Cooperative, competitive, or individualistic? JeumeLQLtheEdueaﬂenef
1091mm. 16(1) 46-54.

Lotan, R. A. Cohen, E. G., &Holthuis, N. (1994). Ialkineendmkinejegethen.
CenditienaieLleamiheJesemelexihatIustien. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans, LA.

Lounsbury, J. H., &Johnston, J. H. (1988). LiteihjheJhLeeaixtheIadea.
Reston, VA: National Association of Secondary School Principals.

Lyman, L., & Foyle, H. C. (1989). QeeeeiatiIIeJeamihethhemiddlesshed.
Paper presented at the annual Kansas Symposium for Middle Level
Education.

Manning, M. L., 8. Lucking, R. (1991). The what, why and how of cooperative
learning- IheSesiaLStudie: 82(3). 120-124.

MCEwin, C. K., 8. Cross, A. H. (1982). A comparative study of perceived
victimization, perceived anonymity, self-esteem and preferred teacher
Characteristics of gifted and talented and nonlabeled early adolescents.
.LeumaLnLEaﬂLAdslssssnss. 2. 247-254.

105

Mergendeller, J. R., 8. Mitman, A. (Far West Laboratory for Educational Research
and Development). (1985). The relationship of middle school program
features, instructional strateQY. instructional performance, and student

engagement. JeumaIsLEamLAdelsasense. 5(2). 183-196.

Meyer, L. H. Harootunia, 8., \Mlliams, D. 8.Steinberg,A. (1991). lnslusixe

middle_:sheeLeIas1isea:_Shiﬂine_erm_dsﬂsit_teauepeIt_medela. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.

Middle Grade Task Force. (1987). WWW

theveuneadeleacehmhﬁahiemiaeuhleacheds. Sacramento:
California State Department of Education.

Miller, J. W. (1992). The new American school: A preview. Streamiiner
Seminar (National Association of Elementary School Principals), 1(1).

Mitman, A. L. (1981)..SIUQQDLD£LC£DIIQD§_Qﬂtaﬂ§mQD_an1§QDQQL_JuanDIQh

[3| ”l0. 0 00. j. 0‘ 0‘ .1 ‘ '0.

practice. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for Educational
Research and Development.

Mitman, A. L. 8Lambert, V. (1992).

hatmstiehalshaﬂehmaebeekjer
middlemadeisdusatets. Irvine: California League of Middle Schools/Far
West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development

Mitman, A. L., Lash, A. A., 8. Mergendeller, J. R. (Far West Laboratory for
Educational Research and Development). (1985). The relationship of
school program features to the attitude and performance of early

adolescents. JeumaLQLEamLAdelssssIm 5(9). 161-182.

Musial, G. G. (1992).Jehn_D.eIIIe¥_and_suIIenLeedagegisaLeIas1issa;_la

WW Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Michigan State University.

Muth, K. D., &Alvermann, D. E. (1992). IeashineahdJsthiththemiddle
grades. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn 8. Bacon.

Nicholls, J. (1989). Ihesemeetitiuetheeanedsmeqatiesdusatien
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Cakes, J. (1985). KeseingJIasLtlenacheeleathIstuIeJhequitiea. New Haven,
CT. Yale University Press.

106

Odynak, E. (1985). BevimsiseeeeratweJeamingieaearshehdmetheda.
Discussion paper prepared for the Ad-Hoc Committee of Multiculturalism

and Education. Secretary of State, Edmonton.

Omstein, A. C. (1992). The role of the middle schools. SlmamﬂnmLSsminaL
(National Association of Elementary School Principals), 10(5).

Powel, W. W., 8. Romano, L. G. (1988). WWW.
East Lansing: Michigan Association of Middle School Educators.

P°‘”°'v C-o 8* Coueieli- J- (1981). ChangeajhstudehteinJIanaitienjemeIimanI
Madam (Educational Research and Development Committee

Report No. 27). Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Reuman, D. A., 8. Maclver, D. J. (1994).

gradeILasademIemetmatiehendjshIevement Baltimore. MD: Center
for Research on Effective Schooling of the Disadvantaged.

Romano, L. G., Georgiady, N. P. 8Heath, J. E. (1973). Selestedieadingsen
anemereingasheeLeIogIam. Chicago,le Nelson-Hall.

Romano, L. G., Hedburg, J. D., 8. Lulich, M. (1973). Developmental
characteristics of pre-adolescents and their implications. ln Inemmme
same). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.

Rounds, T. S. (1982). Qrgamzatiehetihatmsnenjemehtamasheelaumemigh

.00 -I C. o I 000 . o- C q

ashedihgerastissa. San Francisco, CA: Far West Laboratory for
Educational Research and Development.

Sharan, Y., 8. Sharan, S. (1989l90). Group investigation expands cooperative
Ieaming. EdusatiehaLLeaderahie. 41(4). 17-21.

Simons, J. (1991). LearnihgsentmveIaLAaituaIiehaLpsIapesﬂve. Bethesda.
MD: ERIC.

Slavin, R. E. (1981). Synthesis of research on cooperative Ieaming. Edummnal
BeaeaLsh. 40(5). 71-82.

Slavin, R. E. (1987a). Ability grouping and student achievement In elementary

school: A best-evidence synthesis. BexiemeLEdueatienaLBesearcn, 52,
293-336.

107

Slavin, R. E. (1987b). Cooperative Ieaming and the cooperative school.
EducatienaLLeadeIahie. 41(3). 7-13.

Slavin, R. E. (1987c). '
teacher (2nd ed.). Washington, DC. National Education Association.

Slavin, R. E. (1988). Cooperative Ieaming and student achievement.
EducatienaLLeaderahie. 45(2) 31-34

Slavin, R. E. (1989190). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and

controversy. EducatienaLLeaderahie. 41(4). 52-54.

Slavin, R. E. (1991). Are cooperative Ieaming and 'untracking' harmful to the
gifted? Response to Allen. EdusalienaLLeadsLshin. 48(6), 68-71.

Slavin, R. E., 8. Madden, N. A. (1987). EﬂsstiveslaaaIeemeIeeIamaieI
atudents_a1_riek. Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Elementary and

Middle Schools.

Slavin, R. E., 8. Madden, N. A. (1989). What works for students at risk: A
research synthesis. Edusaiienalieadstahl'n. 16(5). 4-13.

Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A. 8. Stevens, R. J. (1989l90). Cooperative Ieaming
models for the 3 "R’s". EdusatienaLLeadsnsbin. 41(4). 22-28

SPSS, Inc. (1990). W. Chicago, IL: Author.

Stefanich, G. P., WIIIs, F. A., 8. Buss, R. R. (1991). The use of interdisciplinary
teaming and its inﬂuence on student self-concept in middle schools.

JeumaLeLEaIILAdeleasense. 11(4), 404-419.

Stevens, R. J. 8.Durkin, S. (1992). Studehtjeamleadineaheatudenneam
Mmhemmiddlejshedejueevaluaﬁeha. Baltimore. MD: Center for
Research on Effective Schooling for Disadvantaged Students, Johns
Hopkins University.

Stevens, R. J., 8. Slavin, R. E. (1992). Iheseeeerathaelsmentamasheet.
i=0I OI O‘I -r.I: :II:I -_II 0‘ .II M:- ‘-0I to
Baltimore, MD: Center for Research on Effective Schooling for
Disadvantaged Students, Johns Hopkins University.

Thomburg, H. D., 8. Glider, P. (1984). Dimensions of early adolescent social

perceptions and preferences. qurnaicLEanLAdeleecence, 4(4), 387-
406.

108

Vygotsky, L. s. (1878). Mind.in.aesietv._Ihe_dsIIsleemeht_oI_hiehsLmental
processes, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wayne State University. (1990). DstmLMIshIganJaxnsﬁlatlenmeIdm
1.990130%: Detroit: University Center for Urban Studies, Southeastern
Michigan Council of Government.

Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups. In R. E.
Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, C. Herts-Lazarowitz, C. Webb, 8. r.

Schumuch (Eds). leanJitheseeeeIaIeLeaIningJeJeam. New York:
Plenum.

Wood, K. D. (1988, September). Meeting the social needs of adolescents
through cooperative learning. MIdeeﬁsheeLJsumaL 32-34.

"IlIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIII