Article

Research in Education
An evaluation of the 2016, Vol. 95(1) 1932
! The Author(s) 2016

cooperative learning Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.7227/RIE.0018
process by sixth-grade rie.sagepub.com

students
Murat Genc
Duzce University, Turkey

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of cooperative learning on
the science lessons achievement of primary school students and to designate their
views on cooperative learning process. 135 sixth-grade students attending the same
school took part in the study. The model of this study was the Solomon four-group
model. In the study, the Cooperative Learning Process Scale and the Science
Achievement Test were used to collect data. In the light of the findings, the cooperative
learning activities done in the experimental group have meaningfully increased the stu-
dent achievement in comparison to the control group. According to the findings, it was
determined that the activities were prepared appropriately to the cooperative learning
and that they were organised considering the basic principles of cooperative learning.
85.07 per cent of the students have stated that the activities done were appropriate for
high level cooperative learning.

Keywords
achievement, cooperative learning, cooperative learning process scale, jigsaw, student
team achievement division

Introduction
The general purpose of education is to make individuals obtain the skills they
need to keep pace with the society and the time in which they live. To make this

Corresponding author:
Murat Genc, Primary Education Department, Duzce University, 81620 Duzce, Turkey.
Email: muratgenc77@gmail.com
20 Research in Education 95(1)

possible, the process of education must be planned and programmed (Celik,

2006). Accordingly, it is of prime importance that education programmes are
prepared and implemented in accordance with the needs of individuals and the
society. The roles of the teachers and the students possess signicant changes in
the new education understanding. While the teacher has become a guide instead
of a source of knowledge, the student has turned into an individual realising her
own learning rather than being a passive receiver of knowledge (Gurbuz et al.,
2015).
The aim of the contemporary education system is to train up person who inves-
tigates ways of attaining knowledge, knows usage knowledge where and when, has
critical thinking skill (Yilmaz, 2007). Today, the importance of the social dimen-
sion is further stressed in the realisation of effective learning. Students can achieve
a more effective learning in positive group climates in heterogeneous groups.
Among the recent approaches that render the students more active in learning
environments, thus aiding them to be more successful in the classroom, is coopera-
tive learning (Bay and Cetin, 2012; Gurbuz et al., 2015).
Cooperative learning (Johnson and Johnson, 1999; Johnson et al., 1988; Brown
and Ciuffetelli, 2009) is a teaching strategy that consists of organising a classroom
activity where students work in groups in a coordinated way to resolve a given
problem, which cannot be resolved by students alone given the time assigned to the
activity. Different from individualised or autonomous learning, in cooperative
learning, the learning process of a particular student is enhanced or even provided
by the skills and work of her group mates, and by the effective communication
they maintain during the activity, e.g. by asking and sharing information, evaluat-
ing ideas and managing and supervising the different tasks and outcomes (Chiu,
2000; Chiu, 2008). Thus, a student has achievement on her learning goals if and
only if the rest of members of the group have achievement as well. In this context,
the role of the teacher changes from presenting the students with information to
easing the acquisition and processing of such information by the students them-
selves (Cohen, 1994; Chiu, 2004). Cooperative learning helps learners to rehearse,
elaborate and expand their knowledge. As group members question, describe, dis-
cuss and explain, other group members learn how to reect, monitor, evaluate,
reorganise and orchestrate their knowledge and skills based on the task at hand.
This is expected to result in meaningful learning (Gelici and Bilgin, 2011; Gurbuz et
al., 2015).
In order to be effective a cooperative learning activity should satisfy two main
requirements: a) students have to work for the achievement of the groups goals,
and b) this achievement depends on the learning process of each student (Brown
and Ciuffetelli, 2009). Thus, when designing a cooperative learning activity, the
tasks and responsibilities of the members of a group have to be well dened and
delimited. A student has to know what she is in charge of and to respond for on
behalf of the group. Moreover, those tasks which a student is responsible of cannot
be completed by any of her group mates. Hence, all the members of a group, taking
care of the achievement of the group, have to participate in the activity doing their
Genc 21

best. More specically, Brown and Ciuffetelli (2009) establish ve fundamental

elements that a (formal) cooperative learning activity should have:
. Positive interdependence: a cooperative group must have each member rely on
each other in achieving success. This characteristic is the main element. The
students need each other to complete the groups task successfully.
. Face-to-face supportive interaction: members of a cooperative learning group
must promote each others learning and success face to face. They have to work
together, share resources and help each other.
. Individual and group accountability: each member of a cooperative learning
group must do his or her fair share of the work and also subject every other
member to the same standard. This is achieved by allocating different roles to
group members.
. Social skills: members of a cooperative learning group must appropriately use
interpersonal and small-group skills for the group to be successful. Social skills
are essential for effective cooperation.
. Group processing: members of a cooperative learning group must process as a
group how effectively each member is working within the group (Togo and
Yuthas, 2001) Finally, the evaluation of the group processing is completed by
individual students, other members of the group and other groups (Johnson et
al., 1998).
Cooperative learning thus requires students to get involved in the tasks of a group,
which not only allows enhancing their own learning processes but also provides
additional benets such as improving their social relations and skills. Recent research
works show overwhelming positive results of cooperative learning (Bilgin, 2006;
Manolas and Leal Filho, 2011). For instance, the study conducted by Tsay and
Brady (2010) reports that students who participated in cooperative activities, showing
a collaborative behavior and providing constructive feedback, had better marks in
nal exams. Slavin (2010) reinforces the results obtained by Tsay and Brady demon-
strating that cooperative learning increases the students self-esteem, enhances their
perception about classmates and breaks ethnic and ideological barriers, encouraging
positive interactions and friendship relations. Thurston et al., (2010) conducted a
project in which the effect of cooperative learning on school transitions was studied.
They studied the cognitive, affective and social acquisitions from primary school to
high school. Balfakih (2003) discussed the effect of high school students on chemistry
learning by means of a student team achievement division technique. It is stated that
concept maps made with cooperative learner groups have an inuence on academic
achievement (Genc and Sahin, 2004; Sizmur and Osborne, 1997).
Studies show that cooperative learning is positively effective on the academic
achievement and socialising of students. That a lesson is prepared and managed in
accordance with cooperative learning is particularly important. In this study,
whether the lesson was done in accordance with cooperative learning or not was
determined via questioning the students.
22 Research in Education 95(1)

Purpose of the study

The purpose of this study is to investigate the effectiveness of cooperative learning
on the science lessons achievement of primary school students and to designate
their views on the cooperative learning process.
In the study, the techniques of cooperative learning were used throughout a unit
and nding out whether the process was carried out as necessary was aimed. To
this end, answers to the following questions were sought:
(1) Is the cooperative learning method used in the unit Growth and
Development of Living Things effective on the academic achievement of
sixth-grade students?
(2) What are the student views on whether the cooperative learning method used
in the unit Growth and Development of Living Things was performed in
accordance with the process?

Methods
The model of this study was the Solomon four-group model. In the Solomon four-
group model, there are four groups formed via unbiased designation. Two of these
groups are the experimental groups while the remaining two are the control groups.
The Solomon research model was used in this study. The Solomon four-group
design is an attempt to eliminate the possible effect of a pretest. It involves random
assignment of subjects to four groups, with two of the groups being pretested and
two, not. One of the pretested groups and one of the unpretested groups is exposed
to the experimental treatment. All four groups are then posttested. Although each
group is put through postexperimental evaluation, the preexperimental evalu-
ations are performed in only two groups, one being an experimental group and the
other being a control group. The rst two groups are treated as the pretestposttest
control group design, and the other two groups are treated as the posttestcontrol
group design. The Solomon four-group model is the most powerful test model
maintaining internal and external validity together (Fraenkel et al., 2012;
Karasar, 2012). A diagram of this design is as follows (Table 1).

The study group

One hundred thirty-ve sixth-grade students attending the same school in Turkey
took part in the study. The students receive education in four separate classes. The
sixty-seven individuals in classes A and B constituted the experimental group
whereas the sixty-eight students in classes C and D were the control group (Table 2).

Data collection tool

In the study, the Cooperative Learning Process Scale (CLPS) (Bay and Cetin, 2012)
and the Science Achievement Test (SAT) were used to collect data.
Genc 23

Table 1. The Solomon four-group design.

Groups Pretest Study Posttest

Treatment group 1 SAT Cooperative Learning SAL, CLPS

Control group 1 SAT Curriculum SAL
Treatment group 2 Cooperative Learning SAL, CLPS
Control group 2 Curriculum SAL

Table 2. Distribution of students according to classes.

Grade Number

6/A (Treatment group 1) 33

6/B (Treatment group 2) 34
6/C (Control group 1) 34
6/D (Control group 2) 34

Cooperative Learning Process Scale (CLPS)

The scale prepared to determine whether the cooperative learning process took
place as intended has ve dimensions. The two half reliability coefcients belonging
to the entire scale developed by Bay and Cetin (2012) was calculated at 0.93.
The scale has ve subdimensions that are titled positive interdependence, indi-
vidual responsibility, face to face supportive interaction, small group skills and
group process. The Cronbach alpha coefcient of the scale in this study was
calculated at 0.94.

Science Achievement Test (SAT)

The achievement test was prepared and developed by the researcher. It was
utilised in the study as pretest and posttest. A pilot study of the achievement
test was performed, initially preparing 70 questions. The questions were inspected
by three experts and in accordance with the suggestions of the experts; the ques-
tion count was reduced to 45. The pre-implementation was performed on 132
students and the number was reduced to 35 at the end of the analyses. The
KR-20 reliability coefcient of the up-to-date achievement test was calculated
at 0.81.

The implementation process of the study

The study was carried out on the unit titled The Reproduction, Growth and
Development of Living Things, which is the rst unit of grade 6. This unit goes
24 Research in Education 95(1)

on for 24 lesson hours, in other words, six weeks. The classes were randomly
designated to experimental and control groups. In the experimental group, infor-
mation on student roles and the principles of cooperative learning was given via
setting heterogeneous groups at the beginning of the unit. Accordingly, the lessons
were taught in the experimental groups using cooperative learning techniques.

Experimental group
Two classes were designated as experimental groups. In these classes, the lessons
were taught using cooperative learning techniques. Given below are the topic titles,
time allocated and techniques used.
(1) The foundation of aliveness: the cell
Six lesson hours: The lessons were taught with the Jigsaw technique. After
the topic had been presented by the teacher, it was divided into subtopics
cell, cell membrane, cytoplasm and nucleus and distributed to students.
After studying in expert groups, own groups members were given a presen-
tation. An evaluation was done and feedback was received. Incomplete topics
were recovered by the teacher.
(2) Reproduction, growth and development in human beings
Four lesson hours: the lessons were taught with Group Research technique.
The students were given a problem each related with the reproduction of
human beings, growth of human beings and development of human
beings and were given the opportunity to make research to propose a solu-
tion to the problem. The students brought their research results to their
groups and offered solutions to the problem. The students shared their nd-
ings with the class and discussed each others solution proposals.
(3) I am not a child any more!
Three lesson hours: the Student Team Achievement Division technique was
implemented. The teacher taught the lesson that is on adolescent, adoles-
cence, physical and mental changes in adolescence in accordance with the
syllabus. Afterwards, the students performed an intragroup study to make
sure that each group member understood the topic. In the evaluation, indi-
vidual points designated the team points. The groups which excelled in team
points were rewarded.
(4) Reproduction, growth and development of animals
Four lesson hours: The last three topics were taught with Team Game
Tournament technique. Two students for each tournament table were
assigned in a way that the contesting students changed every week. After
the teacher had taught the topic in accordance with the syllabus, they let
the students do the related activities. The students prepared their classmates
who are to take part in the tournament. After the contest, the points received
were set as group points.
Genc 25

(5) Reproduction of owering plants

Three lesson hours: Teams Games Tournaments.
(6) Germination, growth and development of plants
Four lesson hours: Teams Games Tournaments.

Control group
Two classes were designated as control group. The class sizes are thirty-four stu-
dents. The teacher taught the lessons in the guidance of the guide book in accord-
ance with the syllabus. Depending on the programme, study book activities were
also done in the lessons.

Data analysis
SPSS program was used for the analysis of the data. In attaining the ndings, the
pretest-posttest control group pattern was used for SAT and for the posttest con-
trol group pattern, dependent and independent t test analyses were done. For the
cooperation process scale and its subdimensions, the Mann-Whitney U test was
used.

Findings
The data obtained appropriately for the research questions is given below.
Is the cooperative learning method used in the unit titled Reproduction Growth
and Development of Living Things effective on the academic achievement of sixth-
grade students?
In accordance with the rst research question, the effect of cooperative learning
on student achievement was investigated. In the investigation that was done
according to the Solomon four-group model, data was obtained according to
Experimental1 and Control1 groups pretestposttest control group model. Since
the class sizes were above 30 and the classes showed a normal distribution, para-
metric tests were used. Accordingly.
A study on the data in Table 3 reveals that in the pre-research SAT pretests,
there was no important difference between the average points of the experimental

Table 3. The independent t test results of the data obtained from the science achievement
test given to Experimental I and Control I groups.

Groups N X S sd t p

Pretest Treatment 1 33 8.39 1.223 65 0.973 0.334

Control 1 34 8.76 1.827
Posttest Treatment 1 33 27.70 2.531 65 8.944 0.000
Control 1 34 22.50 2.219
26 Research in Education 95(1)

Table 4. The independent t test results of the data obtained from the science achievement
test given to Experimental2 and Control2 groups.

Groups N X S sd t p

Posttest Treatment 2 34 26.74 1.797 66 9.565 0.000

Control 2 34 21.91 2.327

and control groups (p > 0.05). When the results of the SAT posttest analysis given
after the implementation are examined, it can be seen that there was a meaningful
difference between the average points of the experimental and control groups stat-
istically, in favor of the experimental group (p < 0.05).
The data obtained from the Experimental2 and Control2 groups were inter-
preted in accordance with the posttest control group model. Accordingly.
An examination of Table 4 reveals that there is a meaningful difference between the
average points of the experimental and control groups in post research SAT pretests
statistically, in favor of the experimental group (p < 0.05). The academic achievement
points of the experimental groups in which the cooperative learning method was used
showed a meaningful increase when compared with the control group.
When the data related with second problem sentence of the research is
examined:
What are the students review on whether the cooperative method was used in accordance
with the process in the unit Reproduction Growth and Development of Living Things?
To nd out whether the cooperative learning process was performed properly in
the experimental groups in which the cooperative learning techniques were used,
CLPS was used. The data obtained from this scale is given below.
According to the points given to the scale by the students, points 12.33 are low,
points 2.333.66 are medium and points 3.665.00 are high in terms of the appro-
priateness of the activities to cooperative learning. Accordingly.
The level of acceptance of the experimental group students of the properness of
the implementation is high with a percentage of 85.07. 14.93 per cent of the stu-
dents, on the other hand, have stated that the cooperative learning method was
implemented at a medium level (Table 5). From the answers given by the students
to CLPS, it is seen that the activities done were appropriate with the cooperative
learning method. The scale average of the experimental group was calculated at 4.31.
According to these results, the view that the meaningful difference in the achievement
test was provided thanks to the properness of these activities.
The items in the scale that received the lowest and the highest averages reveal the
general view of the students about the activities.
The striking point in Table 6 is that the two items that received the lowest points
belong to the positive interdependence subdimension. It is thought that the stu-
dents had difculty in this implementation which they did for the rst time (Table 7).
Genc 27

Table 5. Students level of acceptance of the properness of the

implementation of cooperative learning process.

Students level of acceptance Frequency Percentage Level of participation

1.002.33 0 0.00 Low

2.333.66 10 14.93 Medium
3.665.00 57 85.07 High
Total 67 100

Table 6. The descriptive findings of the 3 items that received the lowest points in the CLPS.

Item no. Statements X Subdimension

Item 10 Group members share the idea 3.70 Positive interdependence

we go down together or
ascend together
Item 38 Group members are construct- 3.84 Social skills
ive in their criticisms.
Item 11 Each group member feels 4.05 Positive interdependence
responsibility for the learning
of other group members.

In the light of the data received, it can be stated that the implementation of
cooperative learning in accordance with the process has a meaningful effect on
their achievement. Additionally, in terms of the subdimensions of the scale, the
relationship of the two experimental groups should be examined.
Both classes have a student count of above thirty, however, as the data of this
scale did not show a normal distribution, nonparametric tests were done.
When Table 8 is examined, it can be seen that the general points of the scale and
the classes in the 4 subdimensions have no meaningful differences. There was a
meaningful difference only in the Face to Face Supportive Interaction subdimen-
sion. Face to Face Supportive Interaction is a result of positive interdependence.
This difference is ascribed to the fact that the two items that received low points in
the experimental group are from the positive interdependence subdimension. It can
be said that there was a problem with adopting a positive attitude towards the
group because of the personal choices of the students.

Results and suggestions

In the light of the ndings, it can be put forward that cooperative learning has a
positive effect on student achievement. There are numerous studies reinforcing this
result (Avsar and Alkis , 2007; Baer, 2003; Balfakih, 2003; Banerjee and Vidyapati,
1997; Barbosa et al., 2004; Berger and Hanze, 2009; Bilgin and Geban, 2004; Foley
28 Research in Education 95(1)

Table 7. The descriptive findings of the 3 items that received the highest points in the CLPS.

Item no. Statements X Subdimension

Item 42 Group members endeavor to do 4.70 Group processing

their best.
Item 21 Group members convey the 4.56 Face to face supportive interaction
results (information) they
receive to each other.
Item 16 Each group member is respon- 4.52 Individual and group accountability
sible for contributing to the
achievement of the group

Table 8. The difference of the level of acceptance of CLPS of the experimental group stu-
dents according to departments (MannWhitney U test).

Group N Mean rank Sum of ranks U p

Total Treatmentl 33 38.32 1264.50 418.500 0.074

Treatment2 34 29.81 1013.50
Positive interdependence Treatmentl 33 37.71 1244.50 438.500 0.123
Treatment2 34 30.40 1033.50
Face to face supportive Treatmentl 33 39.05 1288.50 394.500 0.036
interaction Treatment2 34 29.10 989.50
Individual and group Treatmentl 33 37.29 1230.50 452.500 0.161
accountability Treatment2 34 30.81 1047.50
Social skills Treatmentl 33 37.11 1224.50 458.500 0.196
Treatment2 34 30.99 1053.50
Group processing Treatmentl 33 35.73 1179.00 504.000 0.472
Treatment2 34 32.32 1099.00

and ODonnell, 2002; Gene and Sahin, 2004; Ghaith and Bouzeineddine, 2003;
Hevedanli et al., 2005; Karaca, 2005; Karacop and Doymus, 2013; Langlois,
2001; Ozgiresun, 2005; Sizmur and Osborne, 1997; Simsek, 2005; Topsakal,
2010; Yamarik, 2007). In the research, it can be seen that the activities done in
accordance with the programme in the control group increase the student achieve-
ment. In addition to this, the cooperative learning activities done in the experimen-
tal group have meaningfully increased the student achievement in comparison to
the control group. It was thought that students lived up to the requirements of the
cooperative learning method and it was determined that the program was prepared
in accordance with this method. To determine whether these activities were in
compliance with cooperative learning, the experimental group was given and
CLPS scale at the end of the unit. According to the ndings obtained from the
CLPS data, it was determined that the activities were prepared appropriately to the
Genc 29

cooperative learning and that they were organised considering the basic principles
of cooperative learning.
85.07 per cent of the students have stated that the activities done were appro-
priate for high level cooperative learning. When the average of answering of the
CLPS is examined, that all items are above 3.66, in other words, they are accepted
at a high rate, catches the eye. It is visible that the students were content with the
activities done in accordance with cooperative learning and that this positively
affected their academic achievement. It is seen that the academic achievement of
the experimental group is meaningfully higher than that of the control group
(Tables 3 and 4).
When both experimental groups on which the CLPS was implemented are com-
pared in terms of the entire scale and its subdimensions, it can be seen that there is
a meaningful difference between the two groups in terms of face to face supportive
interaction.
Many studies on cooperative learning have been carried out. There are numer-
ous studies on academic achievement (Bozkurt et al., 2008), its effect on attitude
and permanent learning socioscientic discussions (Day and Bryce, 2013), and its
effect on crowded classes (Okebukola, 1986; Sahin et al., 2004), creation of concept
maps (Genc and Sahin, 2004; Sizmur and Osborne, 1997).
In these various studies, numerous positive effects of cooperative learning are
mentioned. According to the studies, the cooperative climate in the classroom
enhances the learning of the students (Barbosa et al., 2004). The effect of coopera-
tive learning on achievement reveals itself in crowded classes, as well. It is seen in
studies done that it is a technique that eliminates the negativity of crowded classes
(Okebukola, 1986; Sahin et al., 2004). In some studies, in addition, it is mentioned
that the concept maps created with cooperative learning groups have an effect on
academic achievement (Genc and Sahin, 2004; Sizmur and Osborne, 1997). The
importance of the cooperative learning which enables the students to socialise and
lead them to take active part in learning processes is on the rise. Although con-
ventional lectures cannot offer these deep approaches to learning, small groups
working in a cooperative learning mode encourage student autonomy and provide
high-learning outcomes.
Cooperative learning is essential because higher mental functions such as rea-
soning, critical thinking and reection originate in social interactions and are then
internalised by the individuals in the group.
According to the results of this research, the below suggestions can be made:
. Cooperative learning is also underused because many students do not under-
stand how to work cooperatively with others. So students have to be taught how
to work cooperatively.
. The use of cooperative learning method, which is among the active learning
methods, in lessons in a structured way must be enhanced.
. Cooperative learning groups should be utilised in methods that lead students to
making research and questioning, such as Problem-Based Learning.
30 Research in Education 95(1)

. New scales determining whether cooperative learning is performed appropri-

ately should be developed and used.
. Student reviews should be obtained after researches in which cooperative learn-
ing is used.
. Various cooperative learning implementations such as Web-based/online should
be performed and their results should be shared.
. Similar studies should be done at different school levels with different activities
and their results should be shared.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conicts of interest with respect to the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no nancial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
of this article.

References
Avsar Z and Alkis S (2007) The effect of cooperative learning jigsaw technique on student
success in social studies course. Elementary Education Online 6(2): 197203.
Baer J (2003) Grouping and achievement in cooperative learning college teaching. College
Teaching 51(4): 16974.
Balfakih NMA (2003) The effectiveness of Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) for
teaching high school chemistry in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of
Science Education 25(5): 60524.
Banerjee AC and Vidyapati TJ (1997) Effect of lecture and cooperative learning strategies on
achievement in chemistry in undergraduate classes. International Journal of Science
Education 19(8): 90310.
Barbosa R, Joli Z and Watts M (2004) Cooperating in constructing knowledge: case studies
from chemistry and citizenship. International Journal of Science Education 26(8): 93549.
Bay E and Cetin B (2012) Is birligi Sureci Olcegi (ISO) Gelis gtirilmesi [Development of
Cooperative Learning Process Scale (CLPS)]. Uluslararas Insan Bilimleri Dergisi 9(1):
53345.
Berger R and Hanze M (2009) Comparison of two small-group learning methods in 12th
grade physics classes focusing on intrinsic motivation and academic performance.
International Journal of Science Education 31(11): 151127.
Bilgin I (2006) The effects of hands-on activities incorporating a cooperative learning
approach on eight grade students science process skills and attitudes toward science.
Journal of Baltic Science Education 1(9): 2737.
Bilgin I and Geban O (2004) Investigating the effects of cooperative learning strategy and
gender on re-service elementary teacher students attitude toward science and achievement
of science teaching class I. Hacettepe Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi 26: 918.
Bozkurt O, Orhan AT, Keskin A, et al. (2008) The effect of cooperative learning method to
the academic achievement in science and technology lesson. Turksh Journal of Social
Research 12(2): 6378.
Genc 31

Brown H and Ciuffetelli DC (2009) Foundational Methods: Understanding Teaching and

Learning. Toronto: Pearson Education.
Celik F (2006) Turk egitim sisteminde hedeer ve hedef belirlemede yeni yonelimler. Burdur
Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi 11: 115.
Chiu MM (2000) Group problem solving processes: social interactions and individual
actions. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 30(1): 2649.
Chiu MM (2004) Adapting teacher interventions to student needs during cooperative learn-
ing. American Educational Research Journal 41: 36599.
Chiu MM (2008) Flowing toward correct contributions during groups mathematics prob-
lem solving: A statistical discourse analysis. Journal of the Learning Sciences 17(3):
415631.
Cohen EG (1994) Designing Groupwork Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Day SP and Bryce TGK (2013) The benets of cooperative learning to socio-scientic dis-
cussion in secondary school science. International Journal of Science Education 35(9):
153360.
Foley K and ODonnell A (2002) Cooperative learning and visual organizers: effects on
solving mole problems in high school chemistry. Asia-Pacic Journal of Education 22(1):
3850.
Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE and Hyun HH (2012) How to Design and Evaluate Research in
Education, 8th ed. New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies.
Gelici O and Bilgin I (2011) Introducing cooperative techniques and examining students
opinions, Adiyaman University. Journal of Science 1(1): 4070.
Genc M and Sahin F (2004) The effects of cooperative learning with concept map to learn in
science education, In: The 2nd International Balkan Education Congress, Searching
Excellence in Education, October, Edirne, Turkey.
Ghaith GM and Bouzeineddine AR (2003) Relationship between reading attitudes, achieve-
ment and learners perceptions of their jigsaw-ii cooperative learning experience. Reading
Psychology 24: 10521.
Gurbuz N, Simsek U and Berber K (2015) Effect of cooperative learning model on the
academic success of students at 6th grade social studies lesson. Kafkas Universitesi, e
Kafkas Egitim Arastrmalar Dergisi 2(1): 1927.
Hevedanli M, Oral B and Akbayin H (2005) Biyoloji ogretiminde is birlikli ogrenme ve tam
ogrenme Yontemleri ile geleneksel ogretim Yontemlerinie ogrenci bas arsna Etkisi, Milli
Egitim Dergisi 166-Yl 33.
Johnson D and Johnson R (1999) Learning Together and Alone, Cooperation, Competition,
and Individualization. Prentice-Hall: Allyn and Bacon Press.
Johnson D, Johnson R and Holubec E (1988) Advanced Cooperative Learning. Edina, MN:
Interaction Book Company.
Johnson DW, Johnson RT and Smith KA (1998) Active Learning: Cooperation in the College
Classroom, 2nd ed. Edina, MN: Interaction Book.
Karaca S (2005) The effects of cooperative learning method on 9th class high school students
academic success and their comprehension of classication of substance, Master disserta-
tion, Gazi Universitesi Egitim Bilimleri Enstitusu, Ankara.
Karacop A and Doymus K (2013) Effects of jigsaw cooperative learning and animation
techniques on students understanding of chemical bonding and their conceptions of
the particulate nature of matter. Journal of Science Education and Technology 22(2):
186203.
32 Research in Education 95(1)

Karasar N (2012) Bilimsel Arastirma Yontemi. Basm, Ankara: Nobel Akademi Yaynclk.
Langlois S (2001) Helping students to put together the pieces of the statistical puzzle with
cooperative learning. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 5(2):
1179.
Manolas E and Leal Filho W (2011) The use of cooperative learning in dispelling student
misconceptions on climate change. Journal of Baltic Science Education 10(3): 16882.
Okebukola PA (1986) The problem of large classes in science: an experimental in co-opera-
tive learning. European Journal of Science Education 8(1): 737.
Ozgiresun A (2005) The effects to cooperative method on secondary school students academic
success, social interaction and attitude towards science lesson, Master dissertation, Gazi
Universitesi Egitim Bilimleri Enstitusu, Ankara.
Sahin F, Mugaloglu EZ, Genc M, et al. (2004) A possible solution for the crowded class
nightmare, In: 18th International Conference on Chemical Education, Istanbul, Turkey.
Simsek U (2005) The Effect of Cooperative Learning Method on Academic Achievement and
Attitudes of Science Lesson, [Master dissertation], Ataturk Universitesi Fen Bilimleri
Enstitusu, Erzurum.
Sizmur S and Osborne J (1997) Learning processes and collaborative concept mapping.
International Journal of Science Education 19(10): 111735.
Slavin RE (2010) Cooperative learning. In: Baker E, Peterson P and McGaw B (eds)
International Encyclopedia of Education, 3rd ed. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Thurston A, Topping KJ, Tolmie A, et al. (2010) Cooperative learning in science: follow-up
from primary to high school. International Journal of Science Education 32(4): 50122.
Togo DF and Yuthas K (2001) Role playing and cooperative learning in the ais course. The
Review of Business Information Systems 5(2): 6370.
Topsakal UU (2010) The effectiveness of cooperative learning on teaching 8th class unit
substance and energy for living things. Ahi Evran Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Dergisi
11(1): 91104.
Tsay M and 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): 7889.
Yamarik S (2007) Does cooperative learning improve student learning outcomes? The
Journal of Economic Education 38(3): 25977.
Yilmaz M (2007) Instructional technology in training primary school teacher, GU. Gazi
University Journal of Gazi Educational Faculty 27(1): 15567.