Science teacher beliefs and intentions regarding the use of cooperative learning

School Science and Mathematics, Mar 1998 by Lumpe, Andrew T, Haney, Jodi J, Czerniak, Charlene M

The use of cooperative learning is a recurring theme in recommendations for science education, and numerous studies have documented its effectiveness in the classroom. However, teachers' beliefs about using cooperative learning may play an important role in its ultimate implementation. The primary purpose of this study was to examine the factors influencing K-12 teachers ' intentions to use cooperative learning in their science instruction. The Theory of Planned Behavior was used in this study to assess the potential influence of three belief-based constructs: attitude, subjective norm, and perceived control. Salient beliefs about cooperative learning were first identified, scales were developed to measure the theory constructs, and a random sample of K-12 teachers responded to the scales. Two constructs, attitude and perceived behavioral control, were found to be significant influences and accounted for 62% of the variance in the teachers' intent to use cooperative learning in their own science instruction. Specific suggestions for addressing beliefs about cooperative learning and professional development strategies are offered.

Cooperative learning, or collaborative learning, is prominently mentioned in the National Science Education Standards' (National Research Council [NRC], 1996) chapter on teaching,

Working collaboratively with others not only enhances the understanding of science, it also fosters the practice of many of the skills, attitudes, and values that characterize science. Effective teachers design many of the activities for learning science to require group work, not simply as an exercise, but as essential to the inquiry. The teacher's role is to structure the groups and to teach students the skills that are needed to work together. (p. 50)

The BSCS group (1994) noted that cooperative learning is one common recurring theme in science education policy reports. Furthermore, it is not uncommon to find recently published science textbooks and curriculum materials containing sections and student activities devoted to cooperative learning (e.g., Science Plus: Technology and Society, 1997; Full Option Science System, 1993; Middle School Science and Technology, 1994).

Cooperative learning may be simply defined as students working together in small groups. In synthesizing years of research on cooperative learning, Slavin (1990) indicated that its use should include some basic components: group goals, individual accountability, equal opportunities for success, team competition, task specialization, and adaptation to individual needs. Similarly, Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1986) indicated that cooperative learning should incorporate positive interdependence, face-to-face interactions, individual accountability, and the use of social skills.

The effectiveness of cooperative learning in the classroom has been studied extensively. In a comprehensive review of research on cooperative learning, Slavin (1990) described various cooperative learning techniques and listed reports in which researchers tested their effectiveness. According to Slavin, the general trend of research examining the effects of cooperative learning on student achievement has been positive. Variables positively influenced by the use of cooperative learning include achievement, increased retention of information, positive attitudes, and development of social skills. Cooperative learning applied specifically to science classrooms has been shown to enhance learning and affective variables (Humphreys, Johnson, & Johnson, 1982; Lazarowitz, Hertz, Baird, & Bowlden, 1988; Okebukola, 1986; Okebukola & Ogunniyi,1984). Some have noted the positive effects of cooperative learning on science problem solving ability (Champagne, Gunstone, & Klopfer,1985; Doise & Mugny, 1984; Heller & Hollabaugh, 1992; Heller, Keith, & Anderson, 1992; Lumpe & Staver, 1995).

With the assumption that cooperative learning is an effective pedagogical strategy, Czerniak and Lumpe ( 1996) focused their attention on the role of teachers in the implementation of cooperative learning. They found that 93% of the K-12 teachers who responded to their survey believed that to be an effective science teacher cooperative learning was necessary. Eighty-three percent of these same teachers reported that they used cooperative learning at least several times per week. However, this study indicated only the percentage of teachers who reported they used cooperative learning and revealed little about the nature of the teachers' beliefs and reasons for adopting cooperative learning. In spite of the prominent inclusion of cooperative learning in reform report recommendations and curriculum materials, teachers still play a critical role in its ultimate use in the classroom.

The Role of Teachers' Beliefs

Studies warn of the inherent problems associated with ignoring classroom teachers' beliefs about reform. The Rand Change Agent Study conducted from 1973-1978 found that effective change and program implementation depended more upon local factors than federal program guidelines or other "top down" methods (McLaughlin, 1990). Duschl (1990) indicated that the last major reform effort in science education, the period of the late 1950s to early 1970s, failed to treat teacher professional development as an active process and assumed that "teacher proof" curriculum could be successfully implemented in a context-free environment. Cuban (1990) suggested that reforms recycle because policymakers ignore local factors required to bring about change. Bybee (1993), in reflecting upon restructuring in science education, stated, I remain convinced that the decisive component in reforming science education is the classroom teacher. We certainly need books, reports, and recommendations for new policies, and we need new materials, projects, and programs. However, unless classroom teachers move beyond the status quo in science teaching, the reform will falter and eventually fail. (p. 144)