Cooperative is working together as a group to accomplish a common goal where individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves and beneficial to all other members of the group. Cooperative learning is instructional use of small group so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning [1]. The term group learning and cooperative learning are often used interchangeably as if they mean the same thing. Group learning involves several students working together and working together doesn’t necessary involve cooperation. Woolfolk [2] stated that cooperative learning is an arrangement in which students work in mixed ability group and rewarded on the basis of the success of the group. 

The ability to cooperate and work collaboratively with others has become one of the key qualities required by most human institutions. People who are unable to work with others peers are considered to be selfish or less effective for that particular task. However, in some educational setting student’s interaction in class is less fancied even in this day of age. In highly individualistic and competitive environments, students who ask their colleagues for help are mostly negatively considered as weak or dumb students. Sadly, some students consider themselves to be in this weaker student bracket and are reluctant to work with others. They had the tendency to wait until a classmate near them solves the problem and then they try to copy the solution. When ask to present or explain their solution they exhibit complete lack of understanding as to what concepts were applied in reaching the solution. Many researchers have proved that when leaning tasks are structured such that students collaborate, their achievement and performance are always better. Team work motivates and brings out the best in individuals than when they work individually in a competitive way. Team work normally referred to as cooperative learning comprises of a set of techniques that can be used at any level of academic work and in most areas or subjects.

Significance of the Study

The findings of this study will not only help form two students of Eguafo-Abrem Senior High School but all students in and around the Komenda-Edina-Eguafo-Abrem municipality. It will also help teachers and policy makers to come out with policies that will contribute to minimizing the low performance of students from schools in other metropolitans, municipals and districts having most of their population being day students. 

Review of Related Studies

Theoretical Framework: The research was influence by the theory of constructivism. Vygotsky [3] contends that constructivism is major influence in contemporary science and mathematics education. In essence, constructivism is described as learning theory that states that: Knowledge is not passively received, but is actively built by the cognizing subject; and that the function of cognition is adaptive and serves the organization of the experimental world. Again, Vygotsky [3] emphasizes the importance of social interaction in learning that often forms social cohesion. 

Carr et al. [4] also mention that constructivism emphasizes learner activity and how learners construct knowledge as a process of making sense and giving meaning. They argued that constructivism enables learners to talk to one another about their learning. O’Donnell [5] suggested that when learners interact with their peers, learning is mediated and more often than not complete task they would not on their own. By so doing, complex and dynamic relationship between learning and developing can be determined by Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which refers to the area between learned level of independent performance and assisted performance [3]. Also, the potential of learners can be enhanced when they interact with peers and in this way, there is a gain of knowledge from others. One essential thing in constructive learning is that learners are compelled to crystallize what they may be internally fussy into concrete words, encourages knowledge synthesis and making meaning [4] and this is why constructivism theory is deemed fit for this study. 

Jigsaw method, Team-Game-Tournament, Student Team Achievement Division are some of the types of cooperative learning methods. In jigsaw method, students are placed in small heterogeneous groups and are given some tasks according to their individual ability. Groups then split up and meet with individuals from another group who were also given the same portion of task. The students then work to become masters of that task. After students had become experts on their portion of the task, they return to their original group and taught the material to their jigsaw group and are assessed individually. In Team-Game-Tournament TGT, team members prepare each other to do well in the tournament to be conducted the next day over material taught by the teacher. Students compete as representatives of their group and tournament table are grouped by ability level so that the competition is made fair. In Students-Team-Achievement-Division created by Slavin, students are given material to learn in groups and some problems to solve. They are to explain their answers to each other and ask questions directed to mates rather than the teacher. The groups are tested and scored individually and collectively with the highest scored group deemed to be the winner. In other for group success all members are to learn the material well to receive points. Students taught using STAD expressed a mutual concern for peers, had more positive race relationship, showed increase in learning and are more likely to help each other than in a traditional classroom. The researcher intended to use Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) for this work. 

Cooperative Learning as a Teaching Method

In recent years many studies have been done on the topic relating to cooperative learning, grouping students, student’s academic achievement and group rewards. Cooperative learning is a teaching approach in which small groups, each with learners of diverse levels of capability, use range of educational activities to enhance their comprehension of a topic [6]. Cooperative education is one of the recent remarkable and productive areas of research, theory and practice in learning. It denotes students functioning together to attain the objectives and the instructional event that organize the students’ joint effort [7]. Cooperative learning begins with formation of groups or teams of learners of the same grade and age bracket. Cooperative learning technique enables learners to learn from each other and gain importance interpersonal skills [8]. 

The goals of cooperative learning are to enhance learners’ learning and to develop their social skills like decision-making, conflict management and communication skills. This teaching strategy provides opportunities for higher order thinking as opposed to passive listening, reinforces listening to others and gives opportunity for immediate feedback and adjustment of thought. Learners assist each other in understanding material/content and this may even help them broaden their perspectives on issues. Often learners assess the ideas of peers, determine whether they disagree, or partially agree, resulting in an opportunity for better formulating of their own ideas. In cooperative learning, learners view each other as resources, but not as competitors, resulting in individuals learning [9]. Members often provide information prompts, cues, reminders and encouragement in response to other learners’ request for help or their perceived need for help [9]. In this way learners enhance their conceptual understanding. Gillies [10] studied the effect of cooperative leaning on 223 ninth grade students in structured and unstructured groups. Gillies found that students in the structured group were more willing to work with others on assigned tasks and provide assistance to their peers that the students in the unstructured group. The students worked in three or four-person in groups with mixed sex, race and achievement. 

Yamarik [11] used multivariate regression analysis to found out that students taught by cooperative learning achieved greater academic performance in the form of high examination scores. His studies involved a total of 116 students enrolled in intermediate macroeconomic classes group into three or four. Galton et al. [12], Hargreaves and Pell, compared the academic performance and classroom behaviour of student’s ages 11-14 involved in seasons of instruction organized either as cooperative group work or whole class instruction. Their experiment involved three different group works. The design was as followed; collaborative work (complete inter-dependence), cooperative group (taking roles and putting ideas together) and seated groups (checking each other’s work). Data was collected through means of pre and post-test and classroom observations. Galton et al. [12], Hargreaves and Pell, indicated that classes that were taught through the use of collaborative grouping performed better than where the whole-class instruction was dominant. On task behaviour, group work seemed to have 5% increases above whole-class instruction. Additional findings show that open dialogue and sustained interactions were both significantly higher in the group setting over whole-class instruction. Gull and Shehzad [13] in his study, effect of cooperative learning on students’ academic achievement used Quasi experimental design consisting of 63 female students enrolled in grade 12 of public collage and divided them into experimental and control groups and a pre-test was performed on them. Multiple cooperative learning activities including Team Game Tournament (TGT) and Jigsaw II were performed for 8 weeks with the experimental group. Post-test was then conducted and the result indicated that there was significant difference in scores of experimental groups before and after the intervention. He concluded that cooperative learning activities had a positive effect on academic achievement of students enrolled in the subject of education. 

These studies above show that student’s academic achievement was better for students who were involve in cooperative learning environment. Students working towards a common goal enjoy the feeling of helping one another to be successful and the longer the group worked together, the more beneficial this group work seems to become. Among the various teaching and learning strategies advocated by teachers in the pre-tertiary level, cooperative learning is what Effendi and Zanaton [14] settled on as being most effective in achieving result. The ideal situation for student higher achievement is to create an atmosphere in the classroom where students feel comfortable to share their ideas. However, it may take time for the students to become aware of each other’s strength and what they bring to the group. Yamarik [11] found three possible reasons why cooperative learning groups performed better on exams. First, cooperative learning raises student-instructor interaction. Second, cooperative learning increased group studying for the exams. Third, the novelty for working in small groups generates greater interest in the material. 

The structure of the group is very important. In Gillies [10] as well as Yamarik [11] studies, children in the structured group demonstrated less non-cooperative behaviours and less off-task behaviour than their counterparts in the unstructured group. They were more willing to work with others on the task, listen to what they had to say and share ideas and information [10]. The novelty of working in small groups sparked a greater interest in the material [11]. Cooperative learning is recognized as a method that promotes learning across the range of curricula from primary through high school to colleges [10]. This implies that the quality of education can be improved when learners are actively learning in classroom [9].

Tradition Learning and Cooperative Learning

The main motive of cooperative learning is interdependence. Hsiung [15] conducted a comparison on students’ academic performance in both cooperative and traditional learning by using Taguchi Quality Indexes. The participants were 42 sophomore mechanical engineering students. The researcher divided the students into two classes and each class had 21 students. The first group worked together on solving the task assigned to them whereas the second group worked individually. After using a T-test, the researcher found that the students who work in cooperative learning groups had higher grades compared to those students who worked alone. In addition, cooperative encourages interaction. Individuals within the team encourage each other and facilitate one another’s effort to learn together and to teach other students who may have difficulty with the subject or topic. On the other hand, traditional centered learning encourages independent learning. Both systems have positives and negative sides. Cooperative learning encourages teamwork and give feedback and support, learners are able to identify their own strength and weakness regarding their own learning making them less dependent of the teacher. However, the negative side of cooperative learning is that it required more time and learners’ cooperation to succeed. Because it is based on students’ engagement in material alone and feedback from the teacher, traditional learning encourages individuals to be more self-reliant [16]. 

Brown and Mcllroy [17] stated that one of the differences between cooperative learning and more traditional learning approaches is that of the role of competition to motivate students. They stated that setting competitive goals enable students to compete. Therefore, in an effort to outdo their classmates, students are compelled to work harder. On the other hand, there is no competitive instinct in cooperative learning. Another difference between the cooperative and traditional learning is that whereas the individual learning enables one to attain personal goals, there is nothing like personal goals in cooperative learning. In cooperative learning, the interdependence is positive, the students help each other to better in academic performance and they are able to achieve certain academic goals together. Peterson and Miller [18] in an extensive analysis of research studies that gave a comparison among the three paradigms of learning, namely, individualistic, competitive and cooperative learning, examined the quality of collage students’ experience during cooperative learning. The research took place in a collage setting with 113 students participants grouped in four sections of psychology course. The researchers used questionnaire to collect data. After two weeks, the students responded. The researchers found that the best paradigm of learning was the cooperative learning. The researchers noted the experiences of students learning together compared it to individualistic learning. Students who had cooperative learning experiences were more positive towards academic learning than those who did not have cooperative learning experience.

Also, they were more appreciative of ideas and opinions of other students than the ones who did not have cooperative learning experience. Moreover, the students in the cooperative learning group took part in controversial arguments about academic subjects, developed interaction skills and had more academic expectation than students who learned in individualistic and competitive environments. Bahar-Özvariş et al. [19], conducted a study in Turkey in which they examined the difference between cooperative learning strategy which is problem-based learning and lecture-based learning. There were 150 students who participated in this study and the experimental group consisted of 67 students, while the control group was 83 students in a mental hearth course. The students were divided randomly into control group and experimental group. The researchers used pre and post-tests as well as using T-test to measure the difference between the two groups. Results showed that cooperative learning led to better academic performance (T = 0.00) than individualistic learning (T = 0.70). Students functioned well when they cooperated with each other. The researchers observed that cooperation also increased motivation among students towards their learning. The students in the experimental group sought clarification, elaboration and justification from each other. In addition, it enables the students to share argument roles, procedural knowledge and conceptual work. Research also suggest that cooperative learning can be effective in passive learning environments. This kind of learning depend on verbal lectures; the student’s role is passive no activities during class time. 

Nen-Chen et al. [20] conducted an empirical study to examine if cooperative learning improves students’ outcomes in passive learning environment or not. The sample in this study was 172 students in an intermediate accounting course at Hong Kong University. The students were randomly split into two groups; one group taught by cooperative learning (small group) and the second group taught entirely through lectures. The researcher compared the test result for the two groups. The result showed that p value was 0.01 in favour of the experimental group. In addition, the students who worked as groups outperformed students who were taught by using lecture. Perkins and Saris [21] also studied a group of students for four weeks. They studied the effects of the method of jigsaw learning and traditional type of learning on the performance of students. They found that the students who used jigsaw learning performed better on the exam given at the end of the semester than the ones who used the conventional method, showing a 5% increase between pre-test and post-test scores, compared to students who had received lecture-styled classes alone. The reason is that cooperative learning stimulates cognitive activities that promote knowledge retention and achievement. All these research study prove that cooperative learning is the best mode of learning than the traditional lecture-styled way of learning.

Elements of Cooperative Learning

Cooperative is not just a synonym for students learning in groups. A learning practice only qualifies as cooperative education to the degree that key cooperative learning elements are encouraged, which are: Cognitive complexity and development of quality teamwork [22]. According to Cuseau and Pluut [22], cooperative learning facilitates the development of cognitive complexity in other words, the level and depth of knowledge a group has regarding a certain subject or area of knowledge. Quality teamwork has many aspects that cooperative learning can help to develop group collaboration, cooperation and group cohesion. Also, cooperative learning can be employed in any type of task that can be assigned to students in learning classes, project-based courses, or laboratories [23]. 

Objectives of the Study

The main objective of the study was to investigate the poor performance, negative perception and attitude of second year students offering core mathematics in Eguafo-Abrem Senior High School and how to use corporative learning to overcome the challenges in topics that form the foundation of higher topics such as algebraic expression, plane geometry, functions and relations, indices and logarithms and trigonometry. Below are the specific objectives of the study.

To explore cooperative learning to improve students’ performance in some selected Core Mathematics topics:

• To investigate the effect of cooperative learning on the high achievers

• To change students’ perception and attitude towards core mathematics

Hypothesis 

• H₀: There is no significant difference in the performance of students in Core Mathematics before and after         learning through the cooperative approach

• H₁: There is significant difference in the performance of students in Core Mathematics before and after learning through the cooperative approach

Population and Sample

The target population was all form 2 students at Eguafo-Abrem Senior High School. The total population of the entire form 2 students of Eguafo-Abrem is about 365 students. Out of this, 198 (54.25%) of them are girls and the remaining are boys. The researcher randomly selected students from two General Arts and two Home Economics classes. Namely General Arts 3, General Arts 6, Home Economics 1 and Home Economics 2. Thirteen (13) students were selected from each class making a total of 52 students as my sample size, with twenty-eight (28) of them being girls and twenty-four (24) being boys. The average age of the selected students was 17years. The sample strategy used in this study is stratified purposive sampling. Patton [24] described stratified purposeful sampling as samples within samples and suggests that purposeful samples can be stratified by selecting particular units or cases that vary according to a key dimension. Purposeful sampling is a technique widely used in qualitative research for identification and selection of rich-information in a case of limited resource [24]. The researcher used the strategy because he wanted to get an in-depth knowledge of the case using a small population. Patton indicated that the purposive sampling is used to select information for study in-depth; that is participants who possess rich information on the case. A total of 52 SHS 2 students of Eguafo-Abrem constituted the subject for the study.

Statistical Techniques Used in the Present Study

The quantitative data collected from the post-intervention test and the questionnaire conducted were systematically analysed using the SPSS software. The SPSS was used for the data analysis because its efficiency in analyzing data as far as quantitative data is concern as well as it its user friendliness. Since the researcher was interested in finding the difference between the performance of the experimental group against the control group, descriptive statistics such as the simple mean and percentage were used and the paired sample t-test at 95% confidence interval was used to test the hypothesis of the study. The assumptions for using the paired sample t-test were that; data were measured at least at the interval level, variance of the population were roughly equal, data were from normal distribution populations, according to the data , the Levene’s statistics is F = 3.178 with a corresponding level of significance is large (p>0.05) indicating that the assumption homogeneity of variance was not violated and equal variance assumed t-test statistics was used to evaluate the null hypothesis of equality of means. Additional data gathered from the questionnaire was analysed qualitatively to explain students’ perception of cooperative leaning in core mathematics and its effectiveness.

Data Analysis and Interpretation: The data were analysed and presented using Descriptive and Inferential statistics tools of Statistics Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The study was designed to investigate the use of Cooperative Learning in improving students’ performance on some selected Core Mathematics topics as well as the effect   of Cooperative Learning approach on the high achieving students. The result of the questionnaire survey ware presented both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Comparison of the two tests results of the experimental group indicates that out twenty-six (26) students, none scored between zero (0) and four (4) for both pre- and post-intervention tests giving 0% in both cases. Fourteen (14) students scored between five (5) and eight (8) marks during the pre-intervention test representing 53.846%, meanwhile none of the students scored between five (5) and eight (8) marks in the post-intervention test representing 0%. Eleven (11) students scored between nine (9) and twelve (12) for the pre-intervention test representing 42.308%, whilst six (6) students representing 23.077% scored between nine (9) and twelve (12) in the post-intervention test. For scores between thirteen (13) and sixteen (16), there was only one (1) student representing 3.846% for the pre-intervention test while the post intervention test had massive increment of sixteen (16) students representing 61.538% in that same bracket. None of the students scored between seventeen (17) and twenty (20) representing 0% in the pre-intervention test, meanwhile four (4) students representing 15.385% scored seventeen (17) and twenty (20) in the post-intervention test.

Interpretation of Table 2 and 3 

From Table 2 there are differences in the means of pre and post-test scores. The mean for post-test (14.654) is greater than that of the pre-test (9.154). Although there was difference in the mean scores, the researcher could not conclude that there is significant difference in the means. Further analysis was conducted.

Interpretation of Table 4

In Table 4, the paired sample test analysis of the data yielded the value of p = 0.000 which is less than 0.05 at 95% confidence interval. Therefore, we reject the null hypothesis and state that the cooperative approach of learning enhances the performance of students in Core Mathematics.

Table 1: Frequency and Percentage of Pre and Post-Test Scores of Experimental Group

Table 2: Mean Scores of Pre-tests and Post-test of Experimental Group (Paired Samples Statistics)

Table 3: Paired Samples Correlations of Experimental Group

Table 4: Paired Sample Mean Scores of Pre-tests and Post-test of Experimental Group (Paired Samples Test)

Table 5: Mean Scores of Pre-tests and Post-test of Control Group (Paired Samples Statistics)

Table 6: Paired Sample Mean Scores of Pre-tests and Post-test of Control Group (Paired Samples Test)

We therefore accept the alternate hypothesis that there is significant difference in the mean scores of students’ performance in core mathematics before and after learning through the cooperative approach. The researcher further analyses the scores of the control group to see if there were some differences in their scores as it was in the experimental group.

Interpretation of Table 5 and 6

In Table 5, the researcher observed that the means scores were virtually equal. The mean for the pre-intervention test was 9.154 whiles that of the post-intervention test was 9.308 with their standard deviations as 1.666 and 1.738 respectively. Also, Table 6 gave the researcher the bases to make further generalization. The researcher observed that the p-value from the paired sample test of the control group indicated p = 0.461 which is greater than 0.05 at 95% confidence interval indicating there were no difference in the scores of the control group. 

Interpretation of Table 7 

Shows the response of students on item one (1) of the post-intervention questionnaire. None of the students representing 0% disagreed with the statement. Twelve (12) students representing 46.2% agreed and additional twelve (12) students representing 46.2% strongly agreed to the statement giving a sum of Twenty-four (24) students representing 92.4% affirming to the statement that Cooperative Learning is needed by all students regardless of one’s level of achievement. However, two (2) students representing 7.7% were not sure about the statement.

Interpretation of Table 8

Shows the response of students on item two (2) of the post-intervention questionnaire. None of the students representing 0% agreed with the statement. Three (3) students representing 11.5% were not sure about the statement. Whiles eighteen (18) students representing 69.2% disagreed as five (5) students representing 19.2% strongly disagreeing to the statement giving a total of Twenty-three (23) students representing 88.4% disapproving the statement that Cooperative Learning holds bright students back and retard their progress.

Interpretation of Table 8

For item three (3) of the post-intervention questionnaire showed on Table 9 seven (7) students representing 26.9% strongly disagreeing and eighteen (18) students representing 69.2% disagreeing to the statement giving a total of Twenty-five (25) students representing 96.1% disapproving the statement that Cooperative learning gives too much responsibilities to bright students. On the other hand, none of the students representing 0% agreeing to the statement.

Table 7: Cooperative Learning is needed by all Regardless of one’s Level of Achievement

Table 8: Cooperative Learning Holds Bright Students Back and Retard Their Progress 

Table 9: Cooperative Learning gives too Much Responsibilities to Bright Students

Table 10: Cooperative Learning Takes too Much of my Time and Offers me little Benefit

Table 11: Cooperative Learning do not Provide a Fair way of Evaluating Students’ Performance

Table 12: Cooperative Learning Brings out the best in High Achievers and Enhance their Potentials

Figure 1: The Pre-test Results of the Students

Interpretation of Table 10 

It shows the response of students on item four (4) of the post-intervention questionnaire. None of the students representing 0% were uncertain, strongly agreeing or agreeing to the statement. Nine (9) students strongly disagreed while seventeen (17) disagreeing to the statement representing 34.6 and 65.4% respectively. The response gives a sum of Twenty-six (26) students representing 100% disapproval of the statement that Cooperative Learning takes too much of my time and offers me little benefit.

Figure 2: A Histogram showing the Post-test Results of the Students 

Interpretation of Table 11 

It shows the response of students on item five (5) of the post-intervention questionnaire. None of the students representing 0% strongly agreed or agreed with the statement. Thirteen (13) students strongly disagreed, eleven (11) students disagreed while two (2) students were uncertain with the statement representing 50.0%, 24.3 and 7.7% respectively. Specifically, a total of Twenty-four (24) students representing 92.3% disapprove the statement that Cooperative Learning do not provide a fair way of evaluating students’ performance.

Interpretation of Table 12 

It shows the response of students on item six (6) of the post-intervention questionnaire. None of the students representing 0% disagreed, strongly disagreed or were uncertain with the statement. fifteen (15) students representing 57.7% agreed, while eleven (11) students representing 42.3% strongly agreed to the statement giving a total of Twenty-four (26) students representing 100% giving affirmation to the statement that Cooperative learning bring out the best in high achievers and enhance their potentials.

Interpretation of Figure 1

The pre-test results of the shows a positive skewed histogram which means that the students performed poorly. 

Interpretation of Figure 2

The pre-test results of the shows a negative skewed histogram which means that the students performed very well.

Significant differences in students’ achievement and interest towards Core Mathematics were analysed between the experimental and control groups. After the treatment, the experimental group showed significant improvement in Core Mathematics achievement in comparison to control group. This indicated that Cooperative Learning have positive effect on the performance and attitude toward mathematics. The study also shows that students prefer learning mathematics by knowledge sharing. They are more comfortable when they work effectively in groups. It is hope that the findings of this study may be useful and assist policy makers and teachers to identify appropriate measures that could promote Cooperative Learning in mathematics classroom. On a whole, the findings of the study have shown a great improvement in students’ mathematical achievement, perception and attitude. Therefore, the strategy can be successful in secondary schools in Ghana.

Recommendations

• Cooperative Learning should be highly encouraged in schools that have majority of their students being day students. Community day schools and less endow schools in the hitter lands find it difficult in keeping students in school after school hours. But looking at the benefit of this learning strategy one can recommend that the strategy should be encourage by both teachers and management

• Firstly, future studies should focus on the long-term impact on Cooperative Learning on students’ performance. This can be done by increasing the experimental process for a period of one year or more and follow up by monitoring the performance of both control and experimental groups

• Secondly, research should focus on comparison between different models of cooperative learning

• Thirdly, this study was conducted on students’ academic performance, perception and attitude towards Core 

• Mathematics only. Further study should consider the effectiveness of cooperative learning strategies on social skills of individuals with different temperament

• Lastly, future studies can look at the perception of students towards the cooperative learning strategy, by looking at their performance, their attitude toward the use of the strategy and the challenges they face when using the cooperative learning strategies

• Teachers must give task that involve students working cooperatively in groups. In situations in which it is not suitable to implement Cooperative Learning in class, then teachers can assign these tasks as group project or take home assignment for the students and this must be regular

• Time, should is essential particularly in the early stages where students are now being introduce to the strategy, thus planning is very essential in Cooperative Learning strategy

• Cooperative Learning can be frustrating to some individuals and may want disengage themselves in it. Teachers are therefore encouraged to sensitize the students before and during the intervention process. A regular visit to students working in groups may be a good weapon

Cooperative Learning improves student’ performance which was shown after the intervention. Students should therefore have interest in Cooperative Learning instead of individualistic way of learning in isolation. Again, the poor performance of the pre-test of both control and experimental groups was due to lack of cooperation from the students in the high ability bracket which must be discouraged.

1. Johnson, D.W. et al. “The Impact of Leader and Member Group Processing on Achievement in Cooperative Groups.” Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 130, 1990, pp. 507–516.

2. Woolfolk, A. Educational Psychology. 10th Edn., Pearson, 2007.

3. Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society. Translated by M.Cole, Harvard University Press, 1978.

4. Carr, A.A. et al. “Good Ideas to Foment Education Revolution: The Role of System Changes in Advancing Situated Learning, Constructivism and Feminist Pedagogy.” Education Technology, 1998, pp. 5–15.

5. O’Donnell, A.M. and A. King, Cognitive Perspectives on Peer Learning. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.

6. Dyson, B. and A.Casey. Cooperative Learning in Physical Education: A Research-Based Approach. Routledge, 2012.

7. Gömleksiz, N.M. “Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning (Jigsaw II) Method in Teaching English as a Foreign Language to Engineering Students.” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 32, no. 5, 2007, pp. 613–625.

8. Topping, K. et al. “Cooperative Learning in Science: Intervention in the Secondary Schools.” Research in Science and Technological Education, vol. 29, no. 1, 2011, pp. 91–106.

9. Iksan, Z. and E. Zakaria. “Promoting Cooperative Learning in Science and Maths Education: A Malaysia Perspective.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, vol. 3, 2007, pp. 35–39.

10. Gillies, R. “The Effect of Communication Training on Teachers’ and Students’ Verbal Behaviors during Cooperative Learning.” Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 95, 2004, pp. 137–147.

11. Yamarik, S. “Does Cooperative Learning Improve Student Learning Outcomes?” The Journal of Education, vol. 38, no. 3, 2007, pp. 259–277.

12. Galton, M.J. et al. I Love This Man Deweese Dah, Motivating Your Secondary Class: Econometrics Alchemy or Science. Hendry David, 2009.

13. Gull, F. and S. Shehzad. “Effect of Cooperative Learning on Students’ Academic Achievement.” Journal of Education and Learning, vol. 9, no. 1, 2015, pp. 264–255.

14. Effendi, Z. and I. Zanaton. “Promoting Cooperative Learning in Science and Mathematics Education: A Malaysia Perspective.” Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology, vol. 3, no. 1, 2006, pp. 35–39.

15. Hsiung, C.M. “Identification of Dysfunctional Cooperative Learning Teams Using Taguchi Quality Indexes.” Educational Technology & Society, vol. 14, no. 3, 2011, pp. 152–162.

16. Manning, M.L. and R. Lucking. “The What, Why and How of Cooperative Learning.” The Clearing House, 1991.

17. Brown, C.A. and K. McIlroy. “Group Work in Healthcare Students’ Education: What Do We Think We Are Doing?” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 36, no. 6, 2011, pp. 687–699.

18. Peterson, S.E. and J.A. Miller. “Comparing the Quality of Students’ Experience during Cooperative Learning and Large Group Discussions.” The Journal of Educational Research, vol. 97, no. 3, 2004, pp. 123–134.

19. Bahar-Özvariş, Ş. et al. “Cooperative Learning: A New Application of Problem-Based Learning in Mental Health Training.” Medical Teacher, vol. 28, 2006, pp. 553–557.

20. Nen-Chen, H. et al. “An Empirical Test of Cooperative Learning in a Passive Learning Environment.” Issues in Accounting Education, vol. 20, no. 2, 2005, pp. 151–165.

21. Perkins, D.V. and R.N. Saris. “A ‘Jigsaw Classroom’ Technique for Undergraduate Statistics Courses.” Teaching of Psychology, vol. 28, no. 2, 2001, pp. 111–114.

22. Curseu, P.L. and H. Plut. “Student Group as Learning Entities: The Effect of Group Diversity and Teamwork Quality on Groups’ Cognitive Complexity.” Studies in Higher Education, vol. 38, no. 1, 2013, pp. 87–103.

23. Maceiras, R. et al. “Experience of Cooperative Learning in Engineering.” European Journal of Engineering Education, vol. 36, no. 1, 2011, pp. 13–29.

24. Patton, M.Q. Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. 3rd Edn., Sage Publications, 2002.