\r\ncooperative learning method on student’s academic achievement and

\r\non the achievement level over a usual method in teaching different

\r\ntopics of mathematics. The study also examines the perceptions of

\r\nstudents towards cooperative learning. Cooperative learning is the

\r\ninstructional strategy in which pairs or small groups of students with

\r\ndifferent levels of ability work together to accomplish a shared goal.

\r\nThe aim of this cooperation is for students to maximize their own

\r\nand each other learning, with members striving for joint benefit.

\r\nThe teacher’s role changes from wise on the wise to guide on

\r\nthe side. Cooperative learning due to its influential aspects is the

\r\nmost prevalent teaching-learning technique in the modern world.

\r\nTherefore the study was conducted in order to examine the effect

\r\nof cooperative learning on the academic achievement of grade 9

\r\nstudents in Mathematics in case of Mettu secondary school. Two

\r\nsample sections are randomly selected by which one section served

\r\nrandomly as an experimental and the other as a comparison group.

\r\nData gathering instruments are achievement tests and questionnaires.

\r\nA treatment of STAD method of cooperative learning was provided

\r\nto the experimental group while the usual method is used in the

\r\ncomparison group. The experiment lasted for one semester. To

\r\ndetermine the effect of cooperative learning on the student’s academic

\r\nachievement, the significance of difference between the scores of

\r\ngroups at 0.05 levels was tested by applying t test. The effect size

\r\nwas calculated to see the strength of the treatment. The student’s

\r\nperceptions about the method were tested by percentiles of the

\r\nquestionnaires. During data analysis, each group was divided into

\r\nhigh and low achievers on basis of their previous Mathematics result.

\r\nData analysis revealed that both the experimental and comparison

\r\ngroups were almost equal in Mathematics at the beginning of the

\r\nexperiment. The experimental group out scored significantly than

\r\ncomparison group on posttest. Additionally, the comparison of mean

\r\nposttest scores of high achievers indicates significant difference

\r\nbetween the two groups. The same is true for low achiever students

\r\nof both groups on posttest. Hence, the result of the study indicates

\r\nthe effectiveness of the method for Mathematics topics as compared

\r\nto usual method of teaching.","references":"[1] Alexenberg, M., Benjamin, M., 2004. Creating public art through\r\nintergenerational collaboration: Art Education. 57(5), 13-18.\r\n[2] Hompton, D.R., Grudnitski, G., 1996. Does cooperative learning mean\r\nequal learning? Journal of Education for Business. 7(5).\r\n[3] Humphreys , B., Johnson, R.T., Johnson, D.W. ,1982. Effects of\r\ncooperative, competitive, and individualistic learning on students\u2019\r\nachievement in science class. Journal of Research in Science Teaching\r\n, 19 (5), 351-356.\r\n[4] Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., 1993. Implementing cooperative\r\nlearning: Education Digest, 58 (8), 62 - 66.\r\n[5] Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R.,T., 1983. Social interdependence and\r\nperceived academic and persona1 support in the classroom: Journal of\r\nSocial Psychology, 120, 77-82.\r\n[6] Johnson, D., W., Johnson, R., Smith, K., A., 1991. Active Learning:\r\nCooperation in the Classroom. Edina, Minn: Interaction Book Co: 3:3.\r\n[7] Johnson, D.W., Johnson, T., 1999. Making Cooperative Learning Work:\r\nLawrence Erlbaum Associates Taylor and Francis Group, pp. 67-73,\r\naccessed July 16, 2016, http:\/\/www.jstor.org\/stable\/1477225\r\n[8] Johnson, W., D., Johnson, R. T., 1991. Learning together and Alone:\r\nCooperative, Competitive and Individualistic Learning, Allyn and Bacon,\r\nUSA.pp.69-89? 183-217.\r\n[9] Johnson, W., D., Johnson, R., T., 1991. Learning mathematics and\r\nCooperative Learning lesson plans for teachers: Interaction Book\r\ncompany, Cornelia Drive, Edine, Minnesta, USA.pp.1-20.\r\n[10] Jonhson, D., W., Johnson, R. T., Stanne, M. B., 2000. Cooperative\r\nLearning Methods: A Meta-Analysis, [on-line]. The Cooperative\r\nLearning Center at the University of Minnesota, accessed August\r\n27 , 2016, http:\/\/cooperative learningcrc.com\/pages\/cooperative\r\nlearning=methods.html.\r\n[11] Sharan, S., 1980. Cooperative learning in small groups: recent methods\r\nand effects on achievement, attitudes and ethnic relations: Review of\r\nEducational Research.\r\n[12] Sherman, L. W., Thomas, M., 1989. A comparative study of cooperative\r\nand competitive achievement in two secondary biology classrooms:\r\nthe group investigation model versus an individually competitive goal\r\nstructure: Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 55-64.\r\n[13] Slavin, R., E., 1980. Cooperative learning: Review of Educational\r\nResearch, 50 (2), 315-342.\r\n[14] Slavin, R., E., 1991. Synthesis of research on cooperative learning:\r\nEducational leardership , 48, 71-82.\r\n[15] Slavin, R., E., 1996. Research on Cooperative Learning and\r\nAchievement: What we know, what we need to know: Contemporary\r\nEducational Psychology, 2 (1), 43-69.\r\n[16] Slavin, R.,E., 1986. Learning together: American Educator, 10, 6-13.\r\n[17] Whicker, K., M., Bol, L., Nunnery, J., A., 1997. Cooperative Learning in\r\nthe secondary Mathematics Classroom: Journal of Educational Research,\r\n91 (1), 42-48.","publisher":"World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology","index":"Open Science Index 123, 2017"}