Cooperative Learning in the Undergraduate Laboratory Mark E. Smith and C. C. ~ i n c k l e y l Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. IL 62901 G. L. Volk Department of Curriculum and instruction, Soothem Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901 One of the recent approaches t o improving the academic achievement of students in the science classroom is cooperative learning (1, 2). In the cooperative learning approach, students work together in small groups to complete assignments. The cooperative learning approach is in contrast to individualistic and competitive goal structures that have been the traditional modes of education for the past 50 years (3). Althouah research has shown the positive effects of cooperativ~'learningat the elementary (4,s) and secondary (6)levels, few studies have focused on the effects of the cooperative approach at the college level. Robert Slavin (7) notes that most studies haveexamined the effectsof cooperative learning in grades 2-9. We have begun a modification of the chemistry laboratory to imnlement the method of coooerative learnine. The following is a description of an instructional research experiment conducted in an undereraduate chemistrv laboratorv to test the effectiveness of a cooperative learning technique termed Jigsaw (8). The experiment involved 57 students enrolled in an introductory chemistry course for nonchemistry majors. The teaching method was designed t o enrich the laboratory learning experience and make better use of laboratorv time. Familiar problems such as lack of student preparatibn and poor undeistanding of chemistry laboratory concepts were also a focus of impro\.ement when implementing thk cooperative learning method. ~
~
.~-~ ~
-
-
~
Implemenlatlon The Jigsaw technique is an approach to which utilizes small groups of students who work together toward a common goal. The technique involves division of tasks so that erour, each student in a .. . is assigned a particular part of a lesson or unit and acts as a reso&, helping the other memhers of the group learn that section of the material ( 8 ) . To implement the Jigsaw approach, the preparatory work for the chosen laboratory experiment was divided into parts so that each student c&ldbrepare in detail for a smaller portion of the assigned experiment and the learning objectives outlined in the laboratory. This isolated specific topics of an assignment for which the student was responsible (see Table 1). As the students came together t o complete the laboratory experiment, the group members worked together n each e other prepare bv ~" learnine from one another and h e l.~ i .. . . for any examinarions that accompanied the laboratory session. The division of tasks helped the students complete the experiment more efficiently, ieaving more time fo; discussion of the conceptspresented to them through the lahoratory. The effectiveness of the cooperative learning technique hinges on the motivation of students toward achieving success as a eroup. In addition to group - accountability to the instructor-for completion of the assigned material, students are accountable to each other. If a group member is not prepared, the whole group is affected. The instructional aim
-
' Author to whom correspondence should b e addressed
Table 1. Sample Outllne ol Objectives wlth Dlvlslons Acid/Base pH Lab Study Outline Carefully read me IntrDduCtionof the lab experiment. Be able to define the terms pH, acid, and base. Be able to distinguish acids and bases from pH. Know how [Hi] and [OH-] effect b e pH of solution. Carefully read procedures lor Part B of lab. Be able to calculate pH born [ h ' 1 Be able to calc~iateIH'I from pd Refer to pp 261-265 of yaw text and pp 73-77 01 y o u supplementary notes. Carefully read procedures ham Part A of lab. Know how indicators help determine pH, acidity, and alkalinity. Upon completion of the experiment, explain how indlcatorr help identity acids and bases. Be able to explain the effects of buffers on pH. Carefully read part C of y w r lab experiment. Read about buffers on p 266 of your text.
Table 2. Sample Outllne ot pH Laboratory Acids, Bases, pH, indicators, and Buffers
1. Students were instructed on the definitionand calculationof pH. Students solved sample problems given by the instructor, finding the pH when given [Hi] and finding [Ht] when given pH. 2. Students used indicators to helpdeterminemeacidity and basicity of 10 different solutions. Students added indicators to various solutions such as vinegar, soft dink. %I.and NaOH. and observed chanaer 3 student^ rneas.red pH Studantseslmatedtne pHof the solut on6 w h m versa1 ndlcator paper Stuaents measma tne pd of solnoons wlth a ph meter 4. Students observed the propenles of buffers. Students made a buffer solution and measured as pH. The buffer was added to strong acids and bases and pH changes were Observed. Students made Inferences about the properties of lhe buffers. 5. Students reviewed caloulallons and observations and prepared lor the examination. 6. Stwlents tmk laboratory examination.
is for students to he motivated toward helping one another achieve when their success depends on the group's success. In the cooperative learning laboratory, the memhers of small groups share tasks and information in order to better understand the experiment and its concepts. The two laboratorv- exoeriments chosen for this studv . involved acid and base concepts. The first week's exper:ment was over DH and indicators. As an exam~le,Tables 1 and 2 show the outline and preparatory list forthi's lab. The second experiment dealt with acid and base titration. Students spent one week standardizing a hase and the next week titratina an unknown concentration of acid. A similar preparatory list was given for this laboratory. In these laboratories the members of a cooperative learning group were able to share the tasks. For example, a titration could be performed by each member and results averaged for the experiment. Volume 68 Number 5 May 1991
413
Fleld Test of the Jigsaw Technique
The effectiveness of the Jigsaw technique in the undergraduate chemistry laboratory was tested through a quasiexoerimental research design. Four lahoratory sections of gemi is try 140A, a course fo;nonchemistry majors a t Southern Illinois University, were isolated for the experiment. Two of the lahoratory sections were taught using the cooperative learning approach (Jigsaw) and two were taught using more traditional methods. The evaluation took place over three weeks and compared the students' academic achievement on acid and haie concepts. The experimental period entailed one laboratory experiment on pH (see Table 2) and one experiment on acidihase titration. The students were evaluated by their performance on two 15-item multiplechoice exams eiven a t the conclusion of each lahoratory. The cooper&ive learning laboratories were organized with students workine in mouos of three. The week prior to their laboratory experjment thk students were given lists of objectives and preparatory work that were divided into three parts. Each division contained information such as sections of the laboratory manual to read, pages in the text to study, and concepts that should be understood for the examination (Table 1). The students in each group decided how they would divide the preparatory assignment among their members. The students were told that their grade on the multiple-choice exam that followed the laboratory would be an average of the scores of each member in their group. This emphasized their need to work together and help each other prepare for the lab and exam. The Jigsaw technique was designed in this way to create an interdependence among memhers of a small group. The two control laboratories were taught in a more traditional manner. The students in these labs were given the same list of objectives a week prior to their experiment but were instructei to work alone. The instructor gave a short introduction on the concepts and procedures and then had the students complete the lahoratory. At the end of the oeriod, the students were given the same multiple choice examination as the cooperative learning students. The students in each group were equated prior to the experimental period in relation to age, gender, previous number of chemistry courses, and previous lecture examination scores in the course. No significant differences were found in any of these comparisons. However, in comparing the erade ooint averaee of the two eroups, the control group did Show ;significant& higher average 6 ~ ~ a m i% o memn ~ bers. A one-tailed independent t-test indicated significant differences in the means ot'the control group (X = 2.77) and the cooperative learning group (X = 2.30). The t value for these means was 2.60 ( p = 0.0119) which was significant at the 0.05 level. The students were all part of the same lecture class. Both cooperative learning laboratories were taught by the researcher, while the-control laboratories were taught by a graduate student in the chemistry department. Each of the laboratory instructors were teaching assistants in the chemistry department and were considered to have comparable abilities and communication skills. ~~~~
Control
Group
Group
~
Ex~erlmentaiResults
The results of the data analyses showed significant differences in the two a o u p s when comparing the combined scores of the two ac?d and base concepts examinations. The cooperative learning students showed significantly higher achievement than did those taught by the traditional teaching method (figure). A one-tailed independent t-test indicatedsignificant differences @ < 0.05) between the mean of the cooperative learning group and the control group (see Table 3). An additional analysis of the data was completed by dividing each group into three equal sections and comparing the low-, moderate-, and high-achieving students. I t was found 414
Experimental
Journal of Chemical Education
I
2
1
GROUPS Comparison of student achievement on acidlbase concepts
Table 3.
1-Teat Analysls ol Comblned Teat Scores on Acld and Base Concepts
Woup
n
mean
SD
t
P
Cooperative Contml
21
24.43 21.84
4.22 3.02
2'41
0'01928
31
'Slgniflmnt at me 0.05 level
Table 4.
Cooperative Control
Swres Among Dlvlslons Low
Moderate
Hlgh
23.0 18.3
24.3 22.5
25.6 24.6
that the majority of the differences in achievement took place among the lower achieving students. The moderateand high-achieving students in the cooperative learning group did attain higher scores than moderate- and highachievine" students in the control " erouo. . However,. onlv. the low-achieving students in the cooperative learning laboratories scored sienificantlv- hieher - ( t = 3.009. D = 0.0094) in comparison tothe low-achieving students in the control laboratories (see Table 4). Conclusions and Recommendatlons
The proper use of cooperative learning seems to have many valuable outcomes. The approach has been shown to have positive effects on student achievement (3). In this study we have seen the Jigsaw technique affect the learning outcomes of students who were low achievers in chemistrv while also assisting high achievers who found the material tb he less challeneine. The coooerative aooroach had a sianifi-. cant, positive effect on the laboratory learning experience of the undereraduate chemistrv student and in particular the . achievement of the low-achieving student. The Jiesaw techniaue can he implemented in any chemistry laboratory at the college, high school, or junior levels with relative simplicity. Small groups should consist of three to five students (three is recommended). The students within the group . should represent a range of ability from high to low achievers. other aspects of the implementation C&I be ~~~~~~
modified according to the instructors preference such as group and individual accountability as well as student evaluations. The main emphasis is for students t o work together and find success together in their common quest for better understanding of chemistry laboratory concepts. Acknowledgment
Marc Schumacher was the instructor of the control group laboratories, Assistance in this project was provided James Leming and Harold Hungerford. The project was supported by The office of the ~ ~ ~ ~of ~~~d~~~~ p ~ Affairs, The Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry,
and the Science Education division of the Department of Curriculum and Instruction. Literature Cited 1. Johnson. D.: Maruyama. G.;Skon.L. Psychol. Bul!. 1981.89.47-62, 2. slsuin, R . E ~ U C . L ~1988.45 ~ ~ P 121, ~ S31-33, ~ ~ ~ ~ 3. Johnson. D.; Johsnn, R.; Holubec, E. J.: Roy, P. Circles Of Learning; ASCD: Virginia, 1984. 4. Slavin, R.: Leavey, M. B.: Madden, N. A. Elernenlory School J. 1984.84,409%422. 5. .Johnson. D.: Johsnon. R.:Scott L. J.Sorin1 Psyrho!. 1978.104.207-216. fi. ~azosrowitz.R.: ~ e r t zR. , L.; Baird. J. H. Sci. Educ. 1988.2.475-487. 7. Slvi". R. E d ~ e ~ t i ~ n n l L ~ d d p s1989,4714). h' 52-54. ~ E.; Blanoy, i dN.:Stephan, ~ C.:~hSike8.J.; ~ Snapp, 8.~Aronson, M. The JCgmu, C1assroom;Sage: ~ e v e r l yH ~ ~ C 1984. A .
Volume 68
Number 5 May 1991
415
