This document summarizes a case study on the impact of cooperative learning in a communication research methods course. It includes an introduction outlining cooperative learning pedagogy and its benefits. The methodology section describes how students were assigned to consistent groups and measures used to assess motivation, involvement, and academic performance. Results found student involvement in cooperative learning was positively associated with academic performance, supporting the first hypothesis. The second hypothesis that importance placed on grades positively impacts performance was also supported.

1. LOGO
A case study of cooperative
learning and
communication
pedagogy:
Does working in teams
make a difference?
◆ Presenter: Joanne Ho
◆ Instructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Hsu
◆ Date: Oct, 22, 2012

2. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
Citation
Tsay, M., & Brady, M. (2010). A case study
of cooperative learning and communication
pedagogy: Does working in teams make a
difference? Journal of the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 10 (2), 78-89.

3. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
Contents
1 Introduction
2 Literature Review
3 Methodology
4 Result & Discussion
5 Limitation

4. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
I. Introduction

5. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
I. Introduction
 Cooperative learning is one of the most
commonly used forms of active pedagogy.
 Cooperative learning is largely based on the
idea that students learn through social
contexts. (Adams and Hamm, 1994)
Adams, D. M., and Hamm, M. (1994). New designs for teaching and learning. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.

6. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
II. Literature Review

7. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
A. Benefits of Cooperative Learning.
Benefits
Interaction with Striving to create
others enables a group situation
students to make that will foster
sense of their support and
learning and be feedback
responsible. systems &
general social
(Adam&Hamm,1994) skills.
Rushatz (1992)
Adams, D. M., and Hamm, M. (1994). New designs for teaching and learning. San Francisco,CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Rushatz, T. A. (1992). Cooperative learning: An examination of attitudes toward cooperativelearning and its effectiveness.
B.S. Thesis. State College, PA: The Pennsylvania State University

8. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
B. Elements of Cooperative Learning
group processing motivation
competition Elements dependability
accountability interactivity
the use of collaborative skills
(Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991)
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.T. and Smith, K. (2007). The state of cooperative learning in
postsecondary and professional settings. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 15-29.

9. LOGO
www.themegalle
C. Feedback, Evaluation, & Motivational
ry.com
Systems
 Many different forms of assessment
should be implemented into small
group activities, including the
evaluation of presentations,
assignments and projects. (Meyers,
1997)
Meyers, S. A. (1997). Increasing student participation and productivity in small-group activities
for psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 24, 105-115

10. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
D. An Integrated Approach.
 Introducing greater cooperation in the
classroom requires role shifts for both
students and instructors. (Nilson, 1998)
Nilson, L. B. (1998). Teaching at its best. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company, Inc.

11. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
E. Research Question.
What is the relationship between student involvement in
cooperative learning and academic performance in a
communication research methods course?

12. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
F. Hypotheses
Student involvement in cooperative learning
is positively associated with academic
H1 performance.
The importance of grades to a student is
H2 positively with academic performance.
The importance of success to a student
H3 is positively associated with involvement
in cooperative learning.

13. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
III. Methodology

14. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
A. Participants.
White 87.5%
24 Participants
Asians 5.50%
African American
3.20%
Hispanics 2.10%
American Indians
1.20%
no indication of
40.2% males & 59.8% females race 2.5%
Age :18-22 years (M=19.23 SD=0.97)

15. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
B. Procedure
Groups Purpose Response
•Group
•4-6 students as •A class dispersed to do
a group. research
•Remained project. questionnaires.
consistent
throughout the •Readiness •Responses
semester. assessment remained
•Each student tests. confidential
assigned a no. from
code instructors &
students.

16. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
C. Measures.
Likert-percentage scale
Likert-percentage scale
from 0(never)-100(always )
from 0(never)-100(always )
13 items
Based on
motivation competition
group processing dependability
accountability interactivity
the use of collaborative skills

17. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
Sense of…
achievement grades
Likert-scale
1(notimportant)-7(veryimportant)
From1-7
peer group
acceptance success

18. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
Academic Performance
Academic Performance
Individual Group Final grade
scores on scores on
RATs RATs

19. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
IV. Results.

20. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
Student involvement in cooperative learning is
H1 positively associated with academic
performance.

21. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
The importance of grades to a student is positively
H2 with academic performance.

22. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
Discussion
The empirical analysis provided considerable
support that active participation in team-based
learning has a positive relationship with a student
academic performance.

23. LOGO
www.themegalle
ry.com
Limitation
TEXT TEXT TEXT TEXT
•A limitation of using peer review is that students
may feel a sense of competition toward one
another.
•The questionnaire was administered to a small
convenience sample of a relatively homogenous
group.
•Only a case study. The findings should be
interpreted with caution in terms of generalizing
them to a large group of another culture.

24. LOGO