Chapter I

The Problem
Background of the Study
One of the problems encountered by teachers is the inability of the
students to cooperate in class. Discussions always drag, but interest is
nonetheless high. By working in a small group, the students may come to
know and understand each other better and consequently be able to interact
more effectively.
Cooperative learning is a set of instructional models used to help
students meet specific learning ad interpersonal goals in structured groups.
In effect, it is an approach to instruction that involves students working
together to reach a common goal. In the conduct of a lesson, Moore (2003)
expounded that cooperative learning requires students to work together in
mixed ability groups to accomplish a set of tasks. He maintained that the
accountability of individual students for the whole group builds an incentive
for students work together productively.in addition, cooperative learning
requires student cooperation and interdependence to its tasks, goal and
reward structure. In summary, cooperative learning is an approach to
instruction, whereby students work together in small groups and are
rewarded for their collective accomplishments (Arends, 2004).
Most developmental changes are the results of interactions with people
in the environment. Dividing the students into small group aims to provide
an opportunity for the students to become more actively engaged in the
learning and for teachers to monitor the student progress better.
For decades cooperative learning has been implemented in classrooms
with diverse populations primarily as a means of fostering positive student

interactions. In the United States, cooperative learning was first viewed as

an approach to facilitate racial integration.
Statement of the Problem
The study sought to determine the level of cooperative learning of
teacher education students of PSU-Urdaneta campus for the SY 2013-2014.
Specially ,it attempted to answer the following questions:
1.

What

the

profile

of

the

teacher

education

student

of

PSU-

UrdanetaCampus ,Urdaneta City in terms of:

A.

Age,

B.

Sex, and

C.

Family income?

2.

What is the Cooperative Learning the of Teacher Education students of

PSU- Urdaneta as measured by the Cooperative Learning Qualities Checklist

when grouped in terms of
A.

Age,

B.

Sex,

C.

Family income?

3.

What is the Cooperative Learning of the Teacher Education of PSU-

Urdaneta as measured by the Cooperative Learning Qualities Checklist when

grouped as a whole?

Significance of the Study

This study focused on the Cooperation Learning of the Teacher Education
students and deemed to benefit several sectors:
To the students- Through the result of this study, they could have a better
way of understanding the people around them. The result of this study
serves as their reference for evaluating their strengths and weaknesses in
cooperating with other people.
To the Teacher Education Students- Having identified their Cooperative
Learning, they could be encouraged to note vital changes and
development in their behavior to achieve cooperation and social
effectiveness.
To the Parents- Through this study, they will realize that Cooperative
Learning enhances a persons ability to succeed in school as well as in
their future works; therefore they will encourage helping their children
to develop their social skills to be a socially responsive and a helpful
citizen.
To the Teachers- This study will help them

realize the importance of

Cooperative Learning. Thus they can aid in improving the

Cooperative Learning of each student by creating a more
advantageous learning environment.
To the Administration- This study could benefit them by providing them
with resources and materials about Cooperative Learning which
serve

as

their

development

basis

program

in

strengthening

that

would

cooperative

directly

address

enhancement of cooperative competency of students.

skills
the

To other Researchers- This study will stimulate them to conducr the same
study. This will serve as the basis of information for other
researchers.

Scope and Delimitation

This study was conducted to determine the Cooperative Learning of
Tecaher Education Students of Pangasinan State University, Urdaneta
Campus from 1st year- 3rd year sharing the 2nd semester of the Academic
year 2013-2014.

Definition of Terms
Terms

are

conceptually

and

operationally

defined

for

better

understanding of the readers.

Cooperative- operationally this term was used to the way how the
respondents are willing to cooperate with other people.
Learning in this studythis term used to determine the knowledge or skill
gained from learning
Cooperative learning- is generally defined as a teaching arrangement in
which small, heterogeneous groups of students work together to achieve a
common goal.

Chapter II
Review of Related Literature
This chapter presents a selected literature and studies that are of bearing to
the current study. The review of such literature and studies made by the
researchers gave rich background and direction in the preparation and
conduct of the study.
Related Literature
Cooperative learning groups have, since the early 90's, been the
accepted schema of middle school, at least in theory.

In many ways, the

early work of Kagan, D.W. Johnson, R.T. Johnson, and Slavin, echoes the small
group work of the mid-70's ESL movement.

Students in small groups

collaborate to solve a problem, create a product, or perform a task.

While some form of homogeneous grouping has been recommended by
advocates of gifted and talented education (Allan, 1991), most middle school
educators emphasize the downside of such groupings to at-risk students.
They condemn tracking as destructive and preach instead the gospel of
heterogeneous groupings (Carnegie Task Force on the Education of Young
Adolescents, 1989). Thus, "when middle school practitioners focus on the
diverse middle school population, advanced/gifted learners and culturally
diverse learners typically receive less attention than special education or
remedial students"(Moon, Tomlinson and Callahan, 1995).
However, within small cooperative learning groups, some have argued
that "heterogeneous grouping has positive socioemotional outcomes for
gifted

children

and

negative

Archambaultand Hallmark, 1995).

ones

for

non-gifted

children."(Kenny,

Others claim that compared to any

alternative, cooperative learning experiences promote higher achievement,

positive

self-esteem,

social

awareness,

and

tolerance

for

individual

differences, especially when the groups are arranged heterogeneously.

Daniel Holt (1993) points out that "the heterogeneity underpinning

cooperative learning did not originally include the linguistic and cultural
diversity which is now the rule rather than the exception in many schools.
Cooperative learning is nevertheless a strategy that values difference and so
can help educators transform diversity into a vital resource for promoting
students' acquisition of challenging academic subjects."
Whether a researcher argues for homogeneous or heterogeneous
cooperative learning groups, they all agree that, after an initial settling-in
period, "group formation should not be left to chance; instead, careful
forethought is given to the question of who comprises each learning group in
an attempt to create the optimal social learning environment."(Cuseo, 1992).
Related Studies
Foreign Studies
After more than 20 years of research involving over 80 research
studies and a series of extensive reviews of existing research on cooperation
and learning (more than 800 dating back to the late 19th century), Roger
and David Johnson have no doubts: cooperative learning works to the benefit
of students, teachers, schools, and communities. Human beings learn more,
flourish, and connect more when theyre cooperating and less when theyre
competing or working in an isolated fashion, Roger Johnson says.
Cooperative learning situations designed correctly have five key
components:
Positive interdependence (each individual depends on and is accountable
to the othersa built-in incentive to help, accept help, and root for others)
Individual accountability (each person in the group learns the material)
Promotive

interaction

(group

members

information, offer clarifying explanations)

help

one

another,

share

Social skills (leadership, communication)

Group processing (assessing how effectively they are working with one
another)

Cooperative

learning,

the

Johnsons

discovered,

has

many

positive outcomes. Their research shows that cooperative learning improves

students efforts to achieve. They work harder, achievement levels go up,
material is remembered longer, higher-level reasoning is used more, and it
provides not just external motivation but also intrinsic motivation.
What interests the Johnsons even more is that cooperative learning methods
also improve interpersonal relationships among those working together.
Students working cooperatively tend to like each other better, including
groups with both able-bodied students and students with disabilities, groups
with students of different ethnic backgrounds, and groups with both genders.
Students in cooperative learning situations also show increased self-esteem,
self-efficacy, and confidence in the future. They tend to have a higher regard
for school, for the subject they are studying, and for their teachers.
Each group should leave each individual stronger, Roger Johnson says.
The ideal in cooperative learning is that they learn in a group and are able
to perform it alone.
Ann Birdseye, director of human resources for Charleston County School
District, Charleston, S.C., says her department has used cooperative learning
training for more than 10 years. Very simply, it works! she says. When
teachers use cooperative learning strategies correctly, students learn more,
enjoy it more and develop interpersonal and study skills that they will use for
a lifetime. When administrators use cooperative leadership strategies, the
organization is more supportive, effective, positive and productive.

Local Studies
In the Philippine setting, small group techniques with the
participation from the learners were also found to work well in a study by
Dimas (1987), it was found out that the use of active participation as a
technique had certainly affected the behavior of the teacher and the
students. On the part of the teachers, they became more aware of what they
should be doing to cause the students to learn. They realized that much can
be accomplished in one hour if work is systematized and the students are
more involved in class work. On the part of the students, they became more
attentive to lessons and more actively involved in class activities .they felt
more free to consult their teachers when they were doubtful and when they
have problem.in a similar study made by Cuchapin (1982) ,she confirmed
that small group approach is more effective that the whole class approach.
Dominguez (1980), in using peer -mediated instruction found out that there
is great advantage between the controlled and experimental groups with the
favor on that subjected to peer- mediated instruction. These studies which
are the only ones the research came across were not solely on English
classes, but they all made use of small group techniques ,and this paper is to
further prove the significant effect of small group approach ,particularly
cooperative learning techniques.
Theoretical Framework
Social learning theory stresses the relevance of observing and
modeling behaviors, attitudes, and emotional reactions of individuals. The
main focus tends to be on learning by observation and modeling. The theory
originated frombehaviorismsbut has now evolved to include many of the
concepts that cognitivists also hold and as a result it is sometimes known as
social cognitive learning. (Abbott, 2007). Gestalt psychologists criticized
behaviorists for being dependent on overt behavior to explain learning. They
proposed studying patterns rather than isolated events. Gestalt views of

learning have been incorporated into what have come to be labeled

cognitive theory and it can be summarized into two key assumptions. First,
that the memory system is an active organized processor of information.
Second, that prior knowledge plays an important role in learning. In other
words, cognitive theory looks beyond behavior to explain brain-based
learning. (Informasi Guru and Siswa, 2009).
Social learning theory discusses how both environmental and
cognitive factors interact to influence human learning and behavior while
focusing on the learning that occurs within a social context. It assumes that
people learn from one another and explores concepts such as observational
learning, imitation and modeling. (Abbott, 2007).
Social Learning theory demonstrates that more often than not,
people

try

to

emulate

successful

individuals.

(Bandura,1977).

In

Cooperative learning lesson, team formation is crucial to the learning. One of

the most recommended team formations is the heterogeneous team
formation, grouping the High achievers with medium-high, medium-low and
low achievers. This provides an opportunity for the low achievers to learn
through 'modeling' the high achievers. (High,1993). Social Learning theory
also demonstrates that we often emulate those with whom we can identify.
(Bandura, 1977). It is fairly easy to see that some Cooperative learning
structures are tailored for Team building, improving pupil relations and
forming a team bond helps the pupils feel more comfortable in their groups,
comfortable enough to learn through modeling of their team mates.

Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework identifies the profile variable of the
Education Students in terms of their age, sex and family income.

Profile of
Students
Sex

Cooperati
ve
Learning

Age

of the

Family
Income

Teacher
Education
students

Chapter III
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the manner on how data was conducted.
Specially, it tackles the research design, subject of the study, data gathering
instrument, data gathering procedure, sources of data and statistical
treatment.

Research Design
The descriptive survey method of research was utilized in this
study. This approach is appropriate wherever the objects of any class vary
among themselves and are interested in knowing the extent to which the
different conditions obtain among these objects. The word survey signifies
the gathering of data present conditions. The survey has to do two things: to
prove the value of facts, and to focus attention on the most important thing
to be reported (Calmorin, 1994). The survey will be used in the study since
the gathering of data which pertains to the present conditions of the
education students cooperative learning; to prove the value of these facts,
focusing attention on the most important things to be reported. The
researchers used questionnaire as the measuring instrument in gathering of
data. Weighted arithmetic mean was used as the statistical tool to determine
the cooperative learning of education students.

Subjects of the Study

The subjects were the 150 students chosen randomly from first
year to third year of education course both elementary and secondary
education of Pangasinan State University, Urdaneta City Campus during the
school year 2013-2014. Fifty students (50) were selected from each year.
`

Table 1 presents the respondent of the study.

Table 1
Sample respondent of the Study
Course Year Level

Number of Respondent

First Year
Elementary Education

25

Secondary Education

25

Second Year
Elementary Education

25

Secondary Education
Third Year

25

Elementary Education

25

Secondary Education

25

Total

150

Data Gathering Instrument

The main data-gathering instrument was two (2) set survey
questionnaire. The first part is intended to gather information of education

student, and the second part is five-point scale likert type survey
questionnaire. The questionnaire consisting of items under difficulties
encountered in conducting action research that requires the student to rate
in term of scale: 5 means ALWAYS , entirely, etc. ,4 means USUALLY ,a
good deal rather often ,etc. 3 means SOMETIMES ,an average amount etc.
,2 means OFTEN ,sometimes ,a little etc. 1 means NEVER ,not at all, etc.

Data Gathering Procedure

The researcher personally administered the survey questionnaire
to determine the Cooperative learning of the Teacher Education students.
The teacher education students personally answered the demographic profile
and the difficulty test.

Data Sources
The researcher made used of the questionnaire adopted from as
the main data gathering instrument the test is composed 20 questions. Each
question as well as its corresponding option was explained thoroughly. All
the option given are correct except that they differ on the degree on how the
question were answered.

Statistical treatment of data

The data gathered in the study were subjected to statistically
descriptive analysis.

To answer the problem number one (1) this is all about the personal
demographic variables of the respondent ,basic descriptive analysis was
used frequency and percentage .the formula utilized is as follow:
P = f /N X 100%
Where; P = percentage
f = frequency
N = total number of respondent
100% = constant
To determine the level of cooperative learning of the respondents, the
weighted average point was used. the formula utilized is as follows;

WAP=f5 (5) +f4 (4) +f3 (3) +f2 (2) + f1 (1)

N

Where:
f5 = number of response who answered ALWAYS, entirely, etc.
f4 =number of response who answered USUALLY, a good deal, rather often
etc.
f3 = number of response who answered SOMETIMES, about as often as not,
an average amount, etc.
f2= number of responses who answered OFTEN, sometimes, a little, etc.
f1= number of responses who answered NEVER, not at all, etc.

The mean used describing the cooperative learning levels were determined
using the scale below:

4.2 5.0
3.4 4.19
2.6 3.39
1.8 2.59
1 .0 1.79

Very high
High
Average
Low
Very low

CHAPTER IV
Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data
This chapter includes the salient part of the study, which are the
presentation, analysis and interpretation of data. It is in this part where the
data were sorted out, tabulated, subjected to statistical treatment of data
and eventually given meaning, interpretation and implication.
Profile of Teacher Education Students
The subjects of the study were asked to indicate their sex, age
and family income. The data were taken mainly from the responses of one
hundred fifty (150) students and were summarized and presented in tables
below.
Table 1 shows the demographic profile of Teacher Education
students with respect to their sex.
Table 1
Profile of Teacher Education Students With Regards to Sex
Sex

Frequency

Percentage

Male

33

22%

Female

117

78%

Total

150

100%

Table 1 show that the female dominated the sample population

with 78% or 117 respondents while the male group constitutes only 22% or
33 respondents. The data implies that more females have passion when it
comes to field of teaching, thus education course has been assumed by
majority as a course intended for females.
It was affirmed by West (2011) that woman can inspire creatively
and innovative thinking and these traits create an education system that is
transformational ad effective at new teaching methods. Thats why there is
more number of female enrollees for Teacher Education Department that
male.

Table 2 below shows the frequency counts and the percentages of the
profile of respondents with respect to their age.
Table 2
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents in terms
of Age
Age

Frequency

Percentage

16

22

14.67%

17

41

27.33%

18

33

32%

19

30

20%

20 above

24

16%

150

100%

Total

The table shows that most of the respondents are 17 years old
representing 41 or 27.33%. And other, 33 or 22% are 18 years old, 30 or 20
% are 19 years old, 24 or 16% are 20 years old and above and 22 or 14.67%
are 16 years old. This implies most of the Teacher Education students are of
typical age. And age plays a significant role in school performance as
younger student tends to be perform better that their counterparts
(Nwatah,2011).

Table 3 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the

respondents with respect to their family income.
Table 3
Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents in terms
of
Family Income
Family Income

Frequency

Percentage

1,000-5,000 below

81

54%

6,000 above
Total

69

46%
10%

150

It could be gleaned that among 150 respondents, 81 or 54% were

respondents belong to families who have family income of 1,000-5,000 or
low family income, 69 or 46% were those who belong to families with 6,000
above family income or high family income.

Majority of the Filipinos families were concluded under poor families

bracket. As it has been in the survey (2009) Philippines was consider as a
poor country as it is being manifested in its economy.

Table 4 shows the cooperative learning level of the Teacher Education

Students in terms of sex.