Cited by 64Innovative Teaching and Learning MethodsScience Education and PedagogyEducational Methods and Outcomes

The effect of levels of cooperation within physical science laboratory groups on physical science achievement

Chang, Huey‐Por, Lederman, Norman G.·1994·Journal of Research in Science Teaching

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the levels of group cooperation on students' achievement during a series of physical science laboratory activities. Six intact seventh‐grade physical science classes taught by two teachers, with each teacher instructing three classes, were selected from two middle schools. For each teacher, one of the classes was taught with a traditional approach (no cooperative goal structure). The other two classes were assigned to a cooperative goal structure (role assignment and nonrole assignment). For the role assignment class, each student was assigned a specific role, but students in both traditional and nonrole assignment classes were not assigned roles. The Classroom Observation Instrument in Science Laboratory Activity (COISLA), which includes investigative skills (i.e., managing, manipulating, observing, reading, writing, and reporting); social skills (i.e., discussing, encouraging) and nonlearning behaviors (i.e., waiting, off‐task), was used to measure the levels of group cooperation. The grades on lab reports and lab quizzes of students who were taught by the same teacher were compared to assess the effects of the different learning conditions. No significant differences on the students' final achievement were found with respect to the three instructional approaches followed by each teacher. The teacher effect was more significant than either instructional approach on managing, manipulating, observing, reading, and writing behaviors. No significant teacher effect was found for the other behaviors. Only one treatment effect was significant, writing behavior. Overall, the teacher effect was more influential than instructional approach on students' behaviors. In teacher A's classes, reading behavior predicted 21% of students' achievement. However, no significant correlations existed between the 10 collaborative behaviors and students' achievement in teacher B's classes.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/tea.3660310207

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Authors
Chang, H., & Lederman, N. G.
Affiliations
  • National Changhua University of Education (TW)
  • Oregon State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Research in Science Teaching
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1994-02
Volume
31
Issue
2
Pages
167-181
ISSN
  • 0022-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-2736
OpenAlex
W2012908070
Cited by
64
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Research in Science Teaching (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
  • Social Sciences › Education › Science Education and Pedagogy
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Methods and Outcomes
Keywords
cooperative learning, group cooperation, physical sciences, laboratory exercises, academic performance, role assignment, teacher effects, collaborative behavior, investigative skills, seventh grade students, junior high school science

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review