UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF THE INTERNAL

DYNAMICS OF THEIR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING CONTEXTS,

EFFORT MADE AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE.

SYLVESTER ATIBIYA

2011
 UNIVERSITY OF CAPE COAST

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS’ PERCEPTION OF THE INTERNAL

DYNAMICS OF THEIR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING CONTEXTS,

EFFORT MADE AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE.

BY

SYLVESTER ATIBIYA

Dissertation submitted to the Institute of Education, University of Cape Coast

in partial fulfillment of the requirements for award of Master of Education

Degree in Teacher Education

JUNE 2011
 ABSTRACT

The major thrust of the study was to find out the relationship between

students’ perception of the internal dynamics of their collaborative learning

context, effort made and their academic performance in E.P. College of

Education, Bimbilla. One hundred and fifty students from the college were

selected for the study through the purposive sampling technique. Questionnaire

was used to obtain brief demographic information such as gender and age

necessary for the study and the research questions. The correlation between

students’ performance in English, Mathematics, and Science on one hand, and

their perception of the internal dynamics of collaborative learning context on

the other hand was compared.

SPSS computer software was used for the data analysis. The Pearson

Product Moment Correlation was used to analyze data for the correlations

because all the data were measured on six point likert-scale.

Although most respondents had high positive perception (90%) about

the internal dynamics of their collaborative learning context, there was no

correlation between academic performance and the internal dynamics variables

except in the case of equal participation versus performance in science which

has a correlation of 0.231, significant at 0.05. Academic self-efficacy was

found to be moderately related to the way students perceived the internal

dynamics of their collaborative learning context. It was also found that

students’ academic effort and grades in Mathematics, English and Science

were hardly related.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This seemingly solitary work has been accomplished by the aid of a

host of individuals. Appreciation to these people is very crucial. First among

them is Professor James Adu Opare Director of the Institute of Education,

University of Cape Coast who supervised the work. With his busy schedule he

still sacrificed some time to supervise this work. I must say I have been

fortunate to have him direct my research work.

I also appreciate the contribution of Eugene Yaw Milledzi of Adisadel

College for assisting me with reference materials; Michael Aseidu of

Educational Foundations, University Cape Coast; and Emideme Naa Gilbert a

tutor of E.P. College of Education, Bimbilla, for their assistance. The list is so

long but mention must be made of Mr. Eric Anane of the Institute of

Education, University of Cape Coast and Gampie Nicodemus of Nyanpkala.

Thanks to all people who have made significant contributions in various ways

but due to lack of space their names cannot be mentioned here. May the full

measure of the blessing of the almighty God be your portion. Thank you.

iv
 DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to my dear mother Mrs. Atibiya Abowolgo and my

late father Mr. Atibiya Azokko.

v
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Content Page

DECLARATION ii

ABSTRACT iii

DEDICATION iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v

LIST OF TABLES x

CHAPTER

ONE INTRODUCTION 1

Background to the Study 1

Statement of Problem 6

Purpose of Study 8

Research Questions 8

Significance of the Study 9

Delimitation of the Study 10

Limitations of the Study 10

Definition of Terms 11

Organization of the Rest of the Study 11

TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 13

Theories of Social Learning 13

vi
Internal Group Dynamics and Social Learning 19

Promotive Interaction 19

Positive Interdependence 20

Group Process 20

Individual Accountability 21

Social Skills 21

Equal Participation 22

Shared Leadership 22

Group Dynamics and Collaborative Learning 23

Empirical Issues on Group Dynamics 24

Observation on Social Learning theory 27

Reciprocal Relationship in Collaborative Learning 29

The Collaborative Learning Environment 29

The Role of the Facilitator in Collaborative Learning 30

The Role of Learners 30

Problems and Issues Associated with Collaborative

Learning 31

Empirical review of Collaborative Learning 31

Relationship between Academic Learning and Academic

Achievement 32

Developing Social Skills through Collaborative Learning 34

Cultivating Tolerance and Respect through Collaborative

Learning 36

vii
 Relationship between Collaborative Learning and

Individual Learning 36

Influence of Collaborative Learning on Subject Matter

Application 37

Enhancing Self-efficacy through Collaborative Learning 38

Academic Self-efficacy, Effort and Academic

Performance 40

Grapes in the Literature 42

Summary 43

THREE METHODOLOGY 45

Research Design 45

Population 46

Sample Size 46

Instrumentation 46

Data Collection Procedure 49

Pre-Testing of Questionnaire 50

Data Analysis Procedure 51

FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 53

Answers to Research Questions 55

Research Questions One 55

Research Questions Two 59

Research Questions Three 60

viii
 Research Questions Four 61

Research Questions Five 64

FIVE SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 66

Summary 66

Conclusion 68

Recommendation 68

Suggestion 69

REFERENCES 70

APPENDICES:

A 80

B 85

C 86

D 87

ix
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Distribution of Respondents by Gender 54

2 Distribution of Respondents by Age Group 55

3 Distribution of Respondents in Collaborative Learning

Groups 56

4 Respondents Perception of their Collaborative Learning

Context 57

5 Correlations between Academic Performance and Internal

Dynamic Variable 61

6 Relationship between Academic Self-efficacy and Internal

Dynamics Variables 63

7 Frequency Distribution of Responses on Academic

Self-Efficacy 65

8 Effort Made on Personal Studies 66

9 Correlation between Effort and Performance Correlations 68

x
 CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study

The generally low academic performance of teacher-trainees in the colleges

of education in the country is a cause for concern for all stakeholders of education.

The perceived low performance could be attributed to a number of factors. Perhaps

majority of the trainees actually do not intend to be professional teachers but only

use the college of education as a mere means to an end or as stepping-stones to

more adventurous fields of education and personal development. It is also possible

that most trainees see the college of education as a last resort since they have no

option left to fix themselves anywhere else. Mostly these categories of students do

not have the best of results (senior high school level) and for that matter are

generally low achieving students.

E. P. College of Education, Bimbilla has students with similar

characteristics such as mentioned above if not worse. Most of the students of this

college come from the eastern corridor of the Northern Region. This college is

isolated and lacks many social amenities such as access to good roads, potable

water and credible and reliable telecommunication system. It also lacks other

social services such as good medical care, good transportation network linking this

rural area to other important towns in the region and the country at large. The

whole of the eastern corridor of the Northern Region does not attract the best of

teachers at the basic school and senior high school levels because of the deprived

1
nature of the area. This type of environment does not attract good students to the

college. In fact, the college seems to have one of the worst records of students with

very bad entry behaviour in the past as available records in the college indicate.

The Evangelical Presbyterian (E.P.) College of Education, Bimbilla was

established in 1962 as a single sex (male) institution with an initial intake of 24 to

train teachers to acquire Certificate ‘A’ 4year post middle. The first batch of

females was admitted in 1983 and that marked the beginning of increased

enrollment and it becoming a co-educational institution. The college shifted from

the award of certificate ‘A’ 4-year post middle to certificate ‘A’ 3-year Post

Secondary in 1992. It remained at that status until 2005 when the college, with

other 37 public colleges in Ghana, was mandated by government to award diploma

in basic education in line with policy and under the tutelage of the University of

Cape Coast.

The last few years before colleges were raised to tertiary status, presidely

2000-2005, the college suffered one of the worse failures in the country. In the

academic progress records of the college, so many students were being sacked

each year for failing part one. The generation of poor academic performance did

not end with the Three Year Certificate ‘A’ programme. It persisted through the

Diploma in Basic Education programme when the colleges were raised to the

tertiary level. Since 2005, the College is still in the list of colleges that register

poor performance in every semester examinations. The summary of results

analysis released by Institute of Education, University of Cape Coast every

semester, shows that the E.P.College of Education had consistently registered one

of the highest total number of students who were referred in two or more subjects.

The summary and analysis of the results as well as academic progress records of

2
the college show that from 2005/2006 academic year to 2007/2008 about 70% of

the students were referred in about six subjects of the nine courses of each

semester. The perfomance began to improve in 2008/2009 with 120 first year

students and 70 second year students being referred in the first semester courses

whilst the second semester recorded 74 first year and 72 second year referred

students. The final grade of these students for the last three years has been very

poor. The best grade the college has produced so far is one second class upper and

four second class lower. The rest are weak pass or no grade (see appendix B). This

poor academic performance is largely perceived to be resulting from very bad

entry behaviour compounded by fake results as have always revealed by

confirmation of students results by West African Examination Council. The bad

entry behaviour of the students has been a serious problem for some time now due

to the deprived nature of the area. Most of the candidates come with very weak

passes such as ‘D ’and ‘E’ in the core subjects. In fact about 90% of the students

come to the college with ‘E’ in English, Mathematics and Science as indicated by

the 2007-2009 admission records (see appendix C). But could it be the only factor

contributing to the poor performance of the students?

Perhaps some of the learning styles adopted by students are not helpful

enough. May be it is because students do not know or understand or better still are

not able to identify their learning styles in order to make good use of them for

effective learning. A random survey during students’ study time to observe

students’ learning habits revealed several learning styles students seem to be

practicing. Some of these learning styles are solitary and social learning styles

such as interpersonal, print-oriented learning and democratic education. A good

number of students were engaged in solitary learning. These students were found

3
in lonely corners privately and independently learning. Solitary learners are people

who can best learn by teaching themselves how to do something, what something

means, or how something works. What one might wish to know is how such

students are helped out when they encounter problems.

On the other hand, some students were found learning in groups. These groups

shared views, ideas and corrected their notes. Social learners work best in groups,

and are able to absorb more useful information if they are studying with someone

else at the same time. Quizzing each other is also a great way to do things.

Working in groups to practice behaviour may help one to avoid mistakes or errors

made by others and also promote creativity and better organization of ideas.

Several questions could be asked as to whether these learning styles are helpful to

the students and if they do why are the students not performing to expectation.

Learning styles can encompass how you manage information so that you

will remember it, how you prefer to study, and how you go about solving

problems. The concept also deals with your environmental preferences for

learning. Knowing these preferences will help you work more effectively. Do you

like it quiet when you study, or must you have lots of background noise? Do you

prefer bright lights or dim ones? How sensitive are you to temperature? Does a

room that is too hot or too cold make you to lose focus? Does a formal setting such

as a desk and chair work for you, or is studying in your bed effective? Do you like

to move around? What motivates you to study? Do you prefer to study alone or do

you need to study with others? At what time of the day do you most like to study?

If an individual is able to identify the learning styles and environment that most

suits him or her and use them effectively there is no doubt that academic

performance would improve significantly (Hassen, 2010).

4
 It is rarely difficult to find homogenous classes. Most typical classrooms are

heterogeneous with different levels of abilities such as diverse cultural, economic,

linguistics ethnic and social backgrounds. It is in this line that Jones and Jones

(2001) suggested that the teacher must modify a classroom environment to help

learners develop prosaically cooperative behaviour and culture of learning. Jones

and Jones seem to be proposing students learning collaboratively in groups. What

then is collaborative learning? “Collaborative learning” is an umbrella term for a

variety of educational approaches involving joint intellectual effort by students, or

students and teachers together. Usually, students are working in groups of two or

more, mutually searching for understanding, solutions, or meanings, or creating a

product. Collaborative learning activities vary widely, but mostly centre on

students’ exploration or application of the course material, not simply the teacher’s

presentation or explication of it. Collaborative learning as a strategy of learning

among peers originated from Lewin’s (1948) group dynamics which postulates

that a group has a large degree of differentiation.

Recent research suggests learning is fundamentally influenced by the

context and activity in which it is embedded (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989).

Collaborative learning activities immerse students in challenging tasks or

questions rather than beginning with facts and ideas and then moving to

applications, collaborative learning activities frequently begin with problems, for

which students must marshal pertinent facts and ideas. Instead of being distant

observers of questions and answers, or problems and solutions, students become

immediate practitioners.

The present research was designed to study the relationship between

students’ perception of the internal dynamics of their collaborative learning

5
groups, effort made and their academic performance in Ghanaian Colleges of

Education with Bimbilla College of Education in focus.

Statement of Problem

The rather limited knowledge and experience of our young teachers today

as claimed by many people and some educationists make them not only ineffective

in class but contribute largely to the falling standards of education in the country.

A cluster of factors may be contributing to producing teachers who are largely

ineffective in class for the basic schools in Ghana.

It appears some people point acusing fingers at certain causal factors

which include first inadequate time frame at college to prepare well as teachers.

The blaime is also placed on the student-teachers who may not have implored the

best opportunities to train well during their school days. The possibility of tutors

not using the appropriate method, techniques, strategies as well as good guidance

cannot be overruled.

Personal teaching experience in Bimbilla E.P.College of Education

revealed that the college caught up in this web has more serious conditions that are

peculiar to only the college which further reduce the quality of teacher training in

that college. Some of the disturbing factors are one the generally low academic

achievers which results from the fact that majority of the students come in with

very weak passes. Other perceived factors are the environment being seriously

unfriendly for high productive academic work; and the generally poor attitude of

students towards learning. This is shown clearly in their lack of commitment and

zeal in learning. It seems therefore that, students do not cherish knowledge and

competence but cheating in order to pass examinations.

6
 Though things are beginning to change for the better in the last three years,

it appears few obstacles still persist. Some of the efforts made by the college to

improve learning conditions in the school include, employing young and energetic

qualified teachers who are working zealously to turn things round for good. During

the last four years about 75% of the tutors of the college are made efforts to obtain

their second degree in order to improve upon their competence in teaching. Staff

development and progress report, (appendix D). One of the effective strategies

teachers of the college are adopting to improve students performance is

encouraging learners to engage in collaborative group work. The college has also

embarked on remedial classes especially in English, Mathematics and Science to

step up students’ academic performance.

In spite of these efforts made by the college, some pertinent questions still

agitate the minds of many people as to whether the use of collaborative group

work in class during lessons as well as seminars and assignments can help in

producing the desired results. Some of the questions that remained unanswered are

whether students actually engage in collaborative learning, whether there is any

relationship between collaborative learning and student academic performance,

and whether students benefit from collaborative learning. It is these questions that

have informed the researcher’s quest to find out if there is any relationship

between student’s perception of the internal dynamics of their collaborative

learning groups, effort made and academic performance.

Purpose of the Study

This study intends to find out whether there is any relationship between

students’ perception of the internal dynamics of collaborative learning, effort made

7
 and academic performance among students of E. P. College of Education,

Bimbilla. The specific objectives of the study include;

1. To find out students’ perception of the internal dynamics of their collaborative

learning groups.

2. To find out the extent to which students’ perception of the internal dynamics of

their collaborative learning groups and their academic performance are related.

3. To find out the extent students’ self-concept of academic ability is related to their

perception of the internal dynamics of their collaborative learning groups.

4. To find out how students’ self-concept of academic ability is related to the

academic effort they make.

5. To find out the relationship between students’ academic effort and their academic

performance.

Research Questions

This research was designed to answer the following questions:

1. What are students’ perceptions of the internal dynamics of their collaborative

learning groups?

2. To what extent are students’ perception of the internal dynamics of their

collaborative learning groups and their academic performance related?

3. To what extent is students’ academic self-concept related to their perception of the

internal dynamics of their collaborative learning groups?

4. To what extent is students’ academic self-concept related to the academic effort

they make?

5. To what extent is students’ academic effort related to their academic

performance?

8
 Significance of the Study

Available literature indicates that research on collaborative learning has

been done in various subjects and at the various levels of education ranging from

basic levels through second cycle to tertiary levels. Most of these studies were

done outside Ghana (Opare & Eshun 2009). The few studies done in Ghana was at

the senior high school and teacher training college levels. Although all these

studies are similar to the relationship between students’ perception of the internal

dynamics of collaborative learning and academic performance, none of them was

done in the eastern corridor of northern Ghana or has direct relation with schools

in northern Ghana. Besides, this is not replication of what others have done but

an extension by relating it to effort. This research is therefore important since it

will not only be one of the first studies at the college of education level in northern

Ghana, but will also reveal whether collaborative learning at that level is

beneficial. It will also contribute to enrich the knowledge base of the topic and

further close up the gap created by available research works. This study will be

source of information for teachers, especially teachers of E. P. College of

Education, Bimbilla and encouragement to use the technique in teaching.

This research will contribute significantly to the world of research since the

findings may be used as source of information for literature review for some other

studies. Weak points or gaps found in this work may also be used as research

topics for further studies.

Delimitation of the study

This study is limited to E. P. College of education Bimbilla. It specifically

aims at the relation between students’ perception of the internal dynamics of

collaborative learning, effort made and academic performance of students and

9
whether slow learners can use it to overcome learning difficulties. It does not

extend to other forms of collaboration such as team work. The study is also

restricted to only level two hundred (200) students of E. P. College of education

Bimbilla.

Limitation of the study

Some respondents might be reluctant to provide true and sincere

information about their learning weaknesses or problems and performance

(results). Some could also be ignorant about their best strategies that work for

them in their learning process.

Definition of Terms

The following is a list of lexicons that are kin in determining the focus and

direction of this work. The explanation that accompanies each of them is

subjective to contextual usage in the content of the entire work.

Learning and achievement: Students with high self-efficacy tend to be

better students and achieve more.

Collaborative Learning: An instruction method in which students work in

groups towards a common academic goal.

Individual Learning: An instruction method in which students work

individually at their own level and rate towards an academic goal.

Critical-thinking: Items that involve analysis, synthesis, and evaluation of

the concepts.

Self-concept: It is judgment of one's capabilities to perform given actions

and measure specificity which includes the evaluation of competence and feelings.

Efficacy: It is the power to produce an effect-in essence, competence.

10
 Self-efficacy: Beliefs or expectations combined together to form one’s

overall concept of self-efficacy. It relates to a person’s perception of his/her ability

to reach a goal.

Collective efficacy: A group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to

organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given levels of

attainment.

Group dynamics: Interactions among particular students for the purpose

of performing academic tasks in a learning environment.

Vicarious: Something done, felt or experienced by one person on behalf of

another

Organization of the Rest of the Study

This research work is organized in five chapters. The introductory chapter

describes the background to the study, statement of problem, purpose of the study

and research questions. The others are delimitation, limitation, and significance of

the study, definition of terms and organization of the rest of the study

Chapter two reviews related literature based on theories and empirical

evidence. This covers theories of social learning, group dynamics and

collaborative learning, empirical review on collaborative learning, relationship

between collaborative learning and individual leaning and gaps.

Chapter three describes methodology of the study. This includes

description of research design, population and sample size, instrumentation, data

collection procedure and data analysis procedure.

Chapter four presents discussion of results. In this chapter answers to the

research questions are provided. Besides answers to the research questions are

distribution of respondents by gender and age group as well as distribution of

11
respondents in collaborative learning groups. Chapter five sums it all with a

summary of the entire work, conclusion, recommendations and suggestions for

further research.

12
 CHAPTER TWO

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter attempts to review relevant literature on the relationship

between students’ perception of the internal dynamics of their collaborative

learning groups’ effort made and academic performance. A conscious effort has

been made to extensively cover theories of social learning, group dynamics,

applying collaborative learning and all its related issues. Empirical issues are also

reviewed trying as much as possible to expose gaps and weaknesses and also

highlighting strengths found in the available related literature.

Theories of Social Learning

Social learning theory is said to have been derived from the work of

Cornell Montgomery (Rotter, 1954) who proposed that social learning occurred

through four main stages of limitations. These include close contact, imitation of

superiors, understanding of concepts and role model behavior.

This social learning consists of three parts: observing, imitating and

reinforcement. Julian Rotter moved away from theories based on psychosis and

behaviourism and developed learning theories. In social learning and clinical

psychology, Rotter (1954) suggested that the effect of behaviour has an impact on

the motivation of people to engage in that specific behaviour. People wish to avoid

negative consequences while desiring positive results or effect. If one expects a

positive outcome from behaviour or think there is a high possibility of a positive

outcome then there will be more likely an engagement in that behaviour. The

13
behaviour is reinforced with positive outcomes, leading a person to repeat the

behaviour. This social learning behaviour suggests that behaviour is influenced by

these environmental factors or stimulus and not psychological factors alone. Rotter

(1954) and Bandura (1977) expanded on Rotter’s idea as well as earlier work by

Miller and Dollard (1941) which is related to the social learning theories of

Vygostky and Lave. This theory incorporates aspects of behavioural and cognitive

learning. Behavioural learning assumes that people’s environment cause people to

behave in certain ways.

Cognitive learning presumes that psychological factors are important for

influencing how one behaves. Social learning suggests that a combination of

environmental (social) and psychological factors influence behaviour. Social

learning theory outlines three requirements for people to learn and model

behaviour.These are retention; reproduction; and motivation to want to adopt the

behaviour.

One of the tenets and perhaps the most important theoretical underline of

entertainment education is Bandura’s (1979) social learning theory. This theory is

developed from experimental psychological studies which demonstrate how

children learn and imitate modeled behaviours. It is a general theory of human

behaviour even though derived from the field of social psychology.

The social learning theory of Bandura emphasizes the importance of

observing and modeling the behaviours, attitudes, and emotional reactions of

others. Bandura (1977) argues that people learn from observing role models in

day-to-day life. He explains:

Learning will be exceedingly labourious, not to mention hazardous, if

people had to rely solely on their own actions to inform them what to do.

14
 Fortunately, most human behaviours are learned observationally through

modeling. From observing others, one forms an idea of how new

behaviours are performed and on later occasions this coded information

serve as a guide for action. Because people can learn from examples what

to do, at least in approximate form, before performing any behaviour they

are spared needless errors (p.22).

Social learning theory explains human behaviour in terms of continuous reciprocal

interaction between cognitive, behavioural, and environmental influences. The

component processes underlying observational learning are: (1) Attention,

including modeled events (distinctiveness, affective valence, complexity,

prevalence, functional value) and observer characteristics (sensory capacities,

arousal level, perceptual set, past reinforcement); (2) Retention, including

symbolic coding, cognitive organization, symbolic rehearsal, motor rehearsal; (3)

Motor Reproduction, including physical capabilities, self-observation of

reproduction, accuracy of feedback; and (4) Motivation, including external,

vicarious and self reinforcement

According to the social learning theory, modeling influences learning

primarily through its informative functions. Observers retain a symbolic

representation of the modeled behaviour which then serves as a blueprint for the

behaviour. Observational learning has four components: attention, retention,

motor, and motivational processes that help to understand why individuals imitate

socially desirable behaviours (Bandura, 1977).

Other factors involved in these components are the influence of social

group and the structural arrangement of human interaction. Retention processes

deal with the ability to remember the observed models as well as mentally

15
organizing and rehearsing the behaviour, motor reproduction comes through trial

and error, observation of the behaviour or skill but the motor refinements also need

to be present to emulate the behaviour. Finally, motivational processes explain that

people usually enact behaviours that seem to be effective for other people. They

are more likely to adopt more modeled behaviours which will be more beneficial

to them (Bandura, 1977). The notion of modeling and vicarious experience is

therefore typically the way human beings learn.

Bandura refined social learning theory into social cognitive theory.

Bandura posits that children and adults operate cognitively on their social

experiences. These cognitions influence behaviours and development, and other

environmental factors determine how people interact and learn from each other

(Bandura, 1986). The main concept of social cognitive theory explains human

behaviours as a dynamic and correlated interaction between the person and the

environment. Vygotsky (1978) opines that learning occurs during discussion. This

is because interactive process results in individuals recognizing and reconstructing

their own thinking and understanding. In group discussions, members share their

thoughts together and listen to diverse and better informed ideas. This allows

individual members to identify gaps in their own views and discard

misconceptions (Fawcett & Garton, 2005).

In the view of Opare (2007), social learning occurs through social

interaction, through spoken language. When the students learn collaboratively they

discuss issues and concepts, ask questions and argue among themselves. Students

therefore learn from one another by discarding wrong understanding and

misconceptions. The main features of collaborative learning have been described

as verbal communication and that verbalization improves understanding and

16
performance since it encourages exchange of ideas (Underwood, Underwood and

Wood 2000).

Wells and Claxton (2002) believe that learning is a social activity and to be

able to understand how students learn, one must consider the social context within

which they learn. They observed that successful learning takes place through

active participation in purposeful collaborative activities. They were quick to note

that, there is a social confusion connected to collaborative learning. What may be

reasonable for one individual member may be irrational for the whole group.

Social learning and collaborative learning are synonymous and both

inevitably demand working in groups. This is in line with the ideas of Mitnik et al

(2009). According to them collaborative learning is based on the model that

knowledge can be created with a population where members actively interact by

sharing experience and taking on roles. Collaborative learning therefore is heavily

rooted in Vygotsky’s (1978) view that there exists an inherent social nature of

learning which is shown through his theory of zone of proximal development.

Nevertheless Opare (2007) has it that collaborative learning is derived from

Lewin’s (1948) group dynamics. He cited Lewin (1943) as being the first to use

the term to describe the powerful process that takes place within a group (group

internal dynamics). Smith and MacGregor (1992) describe collaborative learning

as an umbrella term for a variety of educational approaches involving joint

intellectual efforts by students or students and teachers together. Johnson and

Johnson (1991) define group dynamics as scientific study of behaviours in groups

to increase our knowledge about the internal nature of group development and

interrelations between groups and individuals. The measure for success and failure

17
of a group depends largely on how consistent its internal dynamics are with the

goals and aspirations of its members.

The performance of a group depends so much on an individual’s role

because members depend on each other for achievement. A powerful group

dynamics is created if members of the group play their individual roles based on

the fact that their individual successes depend on the success of the whole group.

Lewin’s (1948) field theory explains human behaviour as a function of both the

person and the environment. This means an individual’s behaviour is related to

both social situations and the characteristics of the individual involved. Brown

(1988) identified two social situations in Lewin’s theory, task interdependence and

fate interdependence. Interdependence of fate and task performance implies that

one’s success in a group may be a necessary pre condition for others to succeed in

their work.

The ideas of the two giant’s theories, Vygotsky and Kurt Lewin can be

merged in collaborative learning. Vygotsky`s theory emphasizes on social

interaction as an effective means for learning. His argument is that learning takes

place through discussion which brings about cross fertilization of ideas. This is in

consistent with Lewin`s theory of group dynamics which stresses on social

interdependence. Lewin’s view of social interdependence is that the success of a

person directly influences other members of the group.

Lewin and Vygotsky share similar views that members of the group must

be actively involved in the learning process. Opare (2007) agreed with them by

explaining that promotive interaction is the mutual help that members offer to one

another. Through interaction and active participation in collaborative learning,

18
learners become more critical in thinking as well as effective in knowledge

synthesis.

Internal Group Dynamics and Social Learning

Johnson and Johnson (1989) as well as Johnson, Johnson and Holubec

(1988) through their research have always referred to five basic elements in true

collaboration. These are positive interdependence, promotive interaction, group

processing, individual accountability and social skills. However, Opare (2007)

indicates that a close scrutiny of Lewin`s (1948) group dynamics reveal two more

elements or conditions necessary for the success of collaborative learning. These

are perceived equal participation and shared leadership. These elements can be

described as conditions that are necessary for successful collaborative learning.

Promotive Interaction

According to Roger and Johnson (1994) promotive interaction is described

as individuals encouraging and facilitating each others efforts to achieve and

complete task in order to reach the group’s goal. Students need to do real work

together in which they promote each others success by sharing resources,

supporting, encouraging and applauding each other’s efforts to achieve. In the

view of Opare (2007) promotive interaction is the mutual assistance that members

give to one another. This may include giving verbal explanation on how to solve

problems, discussing the nature of the concepts being learned and relating present

to past learning. This ensures that learning groups are both academic support

system and a personal support system. It is through promoting each other’s

learning that members become personally committed to each other and to their

mutual goals.

19
Positive Interdependence

In positive independence each member is assigned complementary and

interconnected roles that specify responsibilities that the group needs in order to

complete the joint task. When the teacher assigns complementary roles such as

reader, recorder, checker of understanding, they are promoting participation that is

vital to high quality learning. Opare (2007) described positive interdependence as

the heart of cooperative and collaborative learning. He explained that if learning

situations are to be collaborative, students must perceive that they are positively

interdependent with other members of the learning group and that their learning

collaboratively together means they either swim together or sink together

depending on the total effect of the individual effort.

Group Process

Opare (2007) defines group processing as the process of monitoring the

success of the group and its members. The group ought to reflect on how well they

are working. They must do self evaluation to determine the extent to which they

are succeeding both as a group and as individuals. Group processing exist when

group members discuss how well they are achieving their goals and maintaining

effective relationships.

The school situation, should offer student time and procedures to analyze

how well their groups are functioning and the efforts to which students are

employing their social skills to help members to achieve and maintain effective

working relationships with the group. Johnson and Johnson (1991) sums up that

group process facilitate the learning of social skills and ensures that members

receive feedback on their participation.

20
Individual Accountability

Vygotsky (1962) explains individual accountability (personal

responsibility) as “what children can do together today they can do alone

tomorrow”. He argues that individual accountability exist when the performance of

individual students is assessed and recommended for contributing to the success of

the group. Opare (2007) gave a clearer view of the concept when he said

individual accountability is the acceptance of the fact that each member of the

group is accountable to the group for task assigned to them. He adds that free

riders must be rebuked and made aware of their negative tendencies. Opare (2007)

emphasizes that for high individual accountability it must be ensured that each

member is strengthened and group members are held individually accountable to

their share of the work,

Social Skills

It is important that individuals learn social skills for collaboration and be

motivated to use them. The whole field of group dynamics is on the premise that

social skills are the keys to group productivity (Johnson & Johnson, 1991). In the

school situation social skills such as leadership, decision-making, trust building,

communication and conflict management skills have to be taught (Johnson &

Johnson, 1991). These social skills are required for interaction with peers from

other cultures and ethnic groups. Godwin (1999) argued that collaborative groups

need to be guided and directed to establish group expectation that they understand

and are willing to meet and actively engaging them in constructing their own

learning opportunities. This will promote their vested interest, commitment and

critical opportunities for students to understanding the significance of exactly

which skills they need to employ and practice. He outlined some pre-requisite

21
skills for these types of interaction as respectful listening to group members; using

appropriate strategies to voice disagreement; turn talking; exhibiting and

maintaining eye contact and self-control; and sharing and trusting.

Equal Participation

In the view of Opare (2007), collaborative learning among peers is

successful when every member is involved. There should be no free riders or any

one perceived as a social loafer. Also no one should be perceived to be doing all

the work whiles others merely goof and listen passively. Every member must feel

that every body is important and therefore an equal participant in the groups

activities.

Shared Leadership

Doyel and Smith (2001) see leadership as something that can be

explored as a social process. It is something that happens between people and not

much of what leaders do. As such it does not depend on one person but on how

people act together to make sense of the situations that face them. It is happening

all the time. Doyel and Smith (2001) further argued that leadership is not

necessarily about one person. Some times everyone has the quality of being a

leader or taking some form of responsibility in their lives. Groups according to

Johnson and Johnson (1991) have at least two objectives namely, completing a

task and maintaining effective collaboration among members. Group members

obtain, organize and use information to make a decision in order to fulfill the

group’s task. The distributed-action theory of leadership has two basic ideas: one

is that any member of the group may become a leader at any time by taking actions

that help the group to complete its task and maintain effective collaborative

relationships, and the other is that any leadership function may be fulfilled by

22
different members performing a variety of relevant behaviours. .In this way

leadership is described as a learned set of skills that anyone with certain minimal

requirements can acquire. Opare (2007) gave a deeper dimension of the concept

explaining that collaborative learning peers at any given time and in any situation

must be seen doing different things. He argued that leadership must be seen to be

diffused and contextual.

Group Dynamics and Collaborative Learning

The theory of group dynamics postulates that so many differences exist in a

group and different members work on different tasks to accomplish different

things for the group. A group dynamics expert Shaw (1981) argues that all groups

have certain things in common: their members interact. For him a group is two or

more people who interact and influence one another. Turner (1987) argues that

groups perceive themselves as ‘us’ in contrast to them. He explains that groups

may exist for a number of reasons- to meet a need, to belong, to provide

information, to support, to supply rewards, and to accomplish goals. Lewin (1948)

points out that the roles performed by individuals in a group ensure that task

behaviour of group members are interrelated so that the groups’ goals are

achieved. The roles are complementary in that one cannot be performed without

the other.

Fawcett and Garton (2005) cited in Opare & Eshun (2009) has it that

collaborative peer learning involves students working together to complete a

common task or to master a common challenge. Gerlach (1994) contended that

collaborative learning is an educational approach to teaching and learning that

involve a group of students working together to solve a problem, complete a task

23
or create a product. It is essentially a social activity in which participants talk

among themselves and through which learning occurs.

Goldbeck (2001) and Sinagra, (2001) as cited in Opare (2007) states that

working together with peers makes learning more effective than working alone. A

review of the Vygotskian framework by Johnson (1994) and Garton (1992)

explained by Opare & Eshun (2009) has it that when students of different ability or

competence level work collaboratively together they tend to gain cognitively in

task performance and stressed that students learn more when they actively

participate in the discussions.

These studies indicate that social learning is a progressive and systematic

way by which students assimilate information and relate this new knowledge to

prior knowledge. Collaborative learning therefore engages learners in processing

and synthesizing information rather than simply memorizing it. Students also

benefit tremendously because of the exposure to different views from peers with

varied backgrounds. Finally, collaborative environments challenge students

socially and emotionally as they interact, present and defend their ideas. Within

this interaction and cross fertilization of ideas new knowledge is created.

Empirical Issues on Group Dynamic

Extensive studies and research has revealed that when people are working

on similar task, the presence of others can enhance performance. This is true with

academic and other activities within a group. Johnson and Johnson (1991)

discovered that cyclists were faster when they were racing against each other than

when the cyclist simply raced against the clock. He argued that the presence of

other people especially competitors, act as stimulants to the performer. He

24
explained that the presence of others lead to psychological stimulation that

enhances performance.

Forsyth (1987) conducted an extensive research on social facilitation

effects among albino rates. He found out that, there was increased eating among

puppies fed in group. As cited in Forsyth (1987), Chen closely observed and

measured the excavation efforts of thirty six ants working to build nets alone or in

groups. He found that just like the study of humans, each ant began to work and

moved more earth when it worked in the presence of other ants than when it works

alone. The presence of spectators therefore influences performance.

Away from animals, Johnson and Johnson (1991) tried to find out whether

the presence of other people increase or decrease performance on a variety of

tasks. They found that on simple tasks, an audience increases speed of

performance. They further compared the performance of individuals and groups to

see which one was more productive. They found that groups were more productive

than individuals.

Michaels et al (1982) also found out that good pool players who had 71% of

their shots while being unobtrusively observed did even better 80% when four

observers came up to watch them play. Athletes often perform best when

energized with the responses of the supportive crowd. Studies of more than 80,000

universities and professional athlete events in Canada, United States and England

reveal that home teams win about 6-10 games. The home advantage though stem

from familiar environment, less travel fatigue, and increased team identity, so

much comes from fans (Zillmann & Paulus, 1993). This clearly shows that people

do respond to the presence of others. But does the presence of observers really

arouse people? In times of stress a comrade can be comforting nevertheless,

25
researchers have found out that with others present, people perspire more, breathe

faster, tense their muscles more and have higher blood pressure and a faster heart

rate (Green & Gange, 1983; Moore and Baron, 1983).

Other studies conducted revealed that in some tasks, the presence of others

hinders performance.The presence of others diminishes efficiency at learning

nonsense syllables completing amaze, and performing complex multiplication

problem (Danshiell, 1930; Pessin, 1933; Pessin & Husband, 1933).These

researchers hold the view that the presence of others sometimes facilitates

performance and sometimes hinders it. Leon Festinger as cited in Forsyth (1987)

stated that groups normally have ways of recovering after failures. Festinger

studied groups who predicted about the end of the world and found out that such

groups even became stronger with failed prophecies. This investigation revealed

that group members normally have to find ways to cope psychologically with their

failures in order to maintain self-image and values in their life. This experiment

clearly proves that members of a group are willing to accept influence from one

another since each one is helping the other.

Groups are a major source of self-definition and self-esteem for individual

members. Turner’s (1982) social identity theory maintains that a significant

portion of self-concept is derived from group membership. Leary and Forsthy

(1987) argue that when the group we belong to succeed we feel more positive

about ourselves but when they fail, our self-esteem drop.

Wright and Forsyth (1991) examined the continuing influence of group

membership in their adolescence period on self-esteem in later life. They

discovered that groups produce immediate changes in the individual self-

conception, which may never end. When group membership ends individuals who

26
once fulfilled basic needs for self-esteem and identity would continue to

experience positive consequences of that membership later in life. Some groups do

not promote the development of positive self-esteem and identity though they may

provide social bounding and expression. It is clear therefore that a group that is

effective in providing the needs of its member is likely to have more positive

impact in producing lasting change in self-esteem (Forsthy, Elliot and Welsh

1991).

The above discussion clearly indicates that people work harder or better in

the presence of others than working alone. This discovery is even relevant with

animals as seen from above. This implies that learning in groups will result in

excellent academic performance than learning individually. This is because the

presence of others psychologically and practically stimulates and effectively

enhances performance.

Observations on Social Learning Theory

Johnson et al (1981) explain that the most effective strategy that

enhances productivity and academic achievement is collaborative learning.

Davidson (1985) examined teaching and learning strategies by reviewing eighty

studies in mathematics which compared student’s achievements in collaborative

learning and whole class traditional instruction .More than forty percent of these

studies revealed that students in small-group approaches registered higher

performance than whole class.

Some researchers have linked group interaction to achievement and have

clearly recommended it to promote effective learning in groups since members

offer and receive help from peers (Webb and Cullion, 1983). Webb (1980) further

showed that students learned better when they gave explanation during their

27
interaction with peers than students who did not give explanation though ability

was held constant.

Webb and Cullion (1983) also found strong link between interaction and

achievement when they investigated the relationship among students’ group

characteristics and the stability of this relationship overtime. One hundred and five

students in the four mathematics classrooms who participated in the two studies

confirmed earlier finding that there is strong relationship between group

interaction and achievement. This finding therefore suggests that it is prudent to

carefully monitor group interaction or change group membership for maximum

results.

Rochelle’s & Teasley’s (1995) define collaboration, as "... a coordinated,

synchronous activity that is the result of a continued attempt to construct and

maintain a shared conception of a problem" (p. 70).This definition explains three

importance of collaboration which include, interactions, processes and effects. A

mutual effort of shared understanding does also occur in non-collaborative

situations. Shared understanding can be viewed as a process by which peers

perform conceptual change interaction or as a condition for conducting effective

verbal interactions (Douglas, 1991).

The theory of collaborative learning is concerned with four items: criteria

for defining the situation (symmetry, degree of division of labour), the interactions

(e.g. symmetry, negotiability ...), processes (grounding, mutual modelling) and

effects. The key for understanding collaborative learning is in the relations

between those four items. At a first glance, the situation generates interactions

patterns; these interactions trigger cognitive mechanisms which in turn generate

cognitive effects. However, such a linear causality is a simplification.

28
 Reciprocal Relationships in Collaborative Learning

Imel (1991) quoted Bruffee (1987) that adult learning in formal or

structured settings, however collaborative, differs from the autonomous learning

that adults choose to do because the facilitator usually designs and structures

activities to ensure that maximum learning occurs. Thus, it becomes the

responsibility of the instructor to create a climate in which collaborative learning

can occur. Three important elements to foster collaborative learning in formal

settings are the environment, the role of the facilitator, and the role of the learners.

Although the three are intertwined, they are discussed separately.

The Collaborative Learning Environment

Collaborative learning can take place only in an environment in which

participants feel free to exchange ideas and share experiences in order to create

knowledge. Therefore, the environment should be unthreatening and democratic,

discouraging hostile competition as well as encouraging mutual respect for the

ideas and opinions of others (Sheridan 1989). In other to create this congenial

environment, learners must be willing to listen to and respect different views as

well as tolerate divergent opinions, engage in discussion and not speech or debate,

exercise the authority relinquished by the facilitator, and develop a sense of

commitment and responsibility to the group. In turn, facilitators must be willing to

surrender complete authority for the learning process and become co-learners with

other participants (Bruffee 1987; MacGregor 1990; Romer 1985; see Imel 1991).

Facilitators and learners are jointly responsible for establishing the

environment but the facilitator takes the lead. Brookfield (1986) cited in Imel

(1991) has observed that one of the facilitator's most demanding tasks is "to assist

in the development of a group culture in which adults can feel free to challenge

29
one another and feel comfortable without being challenged" (p. 14). Without such

an environment, collaborative learning cannot occur.

The Role of the Facilitator in Collaborative Learning

Collaborative Learning calls for a reframing of the traditional teacher’s role

as the authority and transmitter of knowledge. In collaborative learning, the

teacher becomes a facilitator and enters into a process of mutual inquiry, relating

to students as a knowledgeable co-learner; authority, expertise, power, and control

are redefined (MacGregor 1990; Sheridan 1989) quoted by Imel (1991). It is

however difficult for teachers to reconcil their sense of responsibility about course

coverage with the commitment to enabling students to learn on their own.

Facilitators must develop methods of sharing their expertise without usurping the

attempts of learners to acquire their own.

The facilitator needs to prepare learners and plan for collaborative learning.

Learners should be prepaed to develop skills in collaboration and acquire enough

content background to permit them to work in a collaborative learning situation

(MacGregor 1990). In planning for collaborative learning, the facilitator must

consider where and in how much of the learning activity collaboration is

appropriate; establish and communicate clear objectives; use suitable techniques;

prepare content materials, including developing meaningful questions or problems

for group work; structure groups; and provide a clear sense of expected outcomes

of group work (MacGregor 1990; Sheridan 1989).

The Role of Learners

Collaborative learning also calls for significant role shifts for the student:

from listener, observer, and note taker to problem solver, contributor, and

discussant; from low or moderate to high expectations for class preparation; from a

30
private to a public classroom presence; from attendance dictated by personal

choice to meeting the expectations of the collaborative learning group; from

competition to collaboration with peers; from responsibilities associated with

learning independently to those associated with learning interdependently; and

from viewing teachers and texts as the sole sources of authority and knowledge to

viewing peers, oneself, and the thinking of the group as additional, important

sources of authority and knowledge (MacGregor 1990).

Problems and Issues Associated with Collaborative Learning.

Collaborative learning is not without problems. Those most frequently

mentioned in the literature include cultural biases towards competition and

individualism that militate against collaboration, the traditional class structure

which frequently does not allow sufficient time for true collaboration to occur or

for group members to establish trust and a sense of group security, the difficulty in

providing feedback that accommodates the needs of both the group and the

individual, the reluctance of learners to accept their peers as legitimate sources of

knowledge, the inability of facilitators to relinquish their traditional role, and the

development of appropriate and meaningful collaborative learning tasks (Bruffee

1987; MacGregor 1990; McKinley 1983; Novotny, Seifert, and Werner 1991;

Sheridan 1989;cited in Imel 1991).

Empirical Review on Collaborative Learning

Collaborative learning has its origin in a number of movement and

philosophies, most of which have influenced progressive adult education. It draws

heavily from the school of experimental learning and student centred learning that

are based on the work of the philosopher Dewey and social psychologist Piaget

and Vygotsky, it also uses information from the field of social psychology

31
particularly small group theory advanced by Lewin. Critical thinking as a form of

education and problem centred learning have also contributed to collaborative

learning (MacGregor 1990, Sheridan 1989). Collaborative learning sees

knowledge as a social construction and the shaping and testing of ideas. It stresses

that knowledge is something that is created rather than something that is

transmitted from the teacher to the learner (Sheridan, 1989).

Advocates of the universal approach to collaborative learning direct all

attentions to the link between these instructional techniques and different student’s

outcomes. Some evidence seems to support this position. Kulik and Kulik (1979)

for instance found in their study that class discussion is an important component of

collaborative learning which leads to higher cognitive and long term knowledge

retention as compared to traditional pedagogy. In a meta- analysis of studies

among college students, Johnson and Johnson (1991) revealed positive correlation

between cooperative learning and achievement, personal development and social

support.

In the field of education, collaborative learning is increasingly becoming

the most preferred approach to classroom instruction in most schools and across

wide range of disciplines. Studies have revealed that students who studied

collaboratively have improved in their academic performance, self-esteem, greater

number of positive social skills and fewer negative attitudes (Johnson, Johnson

and Holubec 1993; Slavin 1991).

Relationship between Collaborative Learning and Academic

Achievement

Achievement is the desire to meet some internal standard of excellence

(McClelland, 1961). People who have a high need for achievement may strive to

32
do well in any given situation in which there is an evaluation. Such people do not

only want to succeed but also to excel in whatever they do. We can find people

with high need for achievement in all walks of life (eg. in business, academia and

in arts).

McClelland (1961) opines, people with a high need of achievement often

set for themselves goals that are challenging and realistic. They may not always

succeed but then when failures come, they perceive them as challenges and keep

pushing. On the other hand, people with low need for achievement set goals that

are so low that everyone else can achieve or those that are so high and unrealistic

that no one can achieve them. Additionally, when they do not succeed in

something, they are more likely to quit or give up than to persevere.

Holt, Chips and Wallace (1991) as cited by Opare & Eshun (2009) used

collaborative efforts to develop a sense of self-worth among students at different

levels of proficiency in the English language. They also tried to use the same

context to enhance the English language competence of the students. They found

that collaborative learning boosted self-worth and also promoted students’ feeling

of positive regard for one another and consequently enhanced the students’

mastery of English.

In a related study at the college level, Gokhale (1995) in Opare & Eshun

(2009) concluded that collaborative learning fosters the development of critical

thinking through discussion, clarification of ideas and evaluation of other’s ideas.

He argues that if the purpose of instruction is to enhance critical thinking, and

problem-solving skills, then collaborative learning is more beneficial. Opare

(2002) in further explanation of Gokhale’s ideas by using teacher training college

students concluded that students, who studied collaboratively with their peers,

33
achieved significantly higher in non-recall test items than those who studied

individually. Slavin (1987) further noted that besides positive outcomes,

collaborative learning promotes students motivation, encourages group processes,

fosters social and academic interaction among students and rewards successful

group participation.

Collaborative learning enhances academic achievements due to the

enhanced self-efficacy that it induces in students. This self-efficacy which is the

confidence people have in their ability to succeed makes them attempt challenging

task (Bandura 1997). Individuals, who possess a high degree of self efficacy, are

more likely to attempt challenging task, to persist longer at them and to exert more

effort in the process.

Collaborative learning has also been found to be helpful to low achieving

learners. Featherstone (1986) explained that collaborative learning helps learners

to succeed at every academic level. He indicated that when low achieving students

learn in groups they are able to experience success and all other students can

increase their understanding of ideas by explaining them to others. He further

explained that when students are given collaborative task, their learning should be

assessed individually and rewards given based on the group’s performance.

Developing Social Skills through Collaborative Learning

Social skills can be developed through collaborative learning. In fact one of

the main objectives of collaborative learning is the development of student’s

communication and human relations skills. Bruner (1985) contended that

cooperative learning methods improved problem- solving strategies because

students are confronted with different interpretations of the given situations. This

peer support system makes it possible for students to internalize both external

34
knowledge and critical thinking skills and to convert them into tools for

intellectual functioning. Klemm (1994) argued that the team work skills have to be

taught to many to facilitate effective group learning and the group processing

experience must include the learning of skills needed in leadership, decision

making, and trust building, communicating and conflict management. Slavin

(1993) maintained that there is enough evidence suggesting that people who learn

collaboratively tend to develop greater likeness for their class mates because of

their involvement in collaborative learning process.

Dalton and Smith (1986) discovered that the likely benefit of collaboration

for all students include, increased academic achievement, cognitive development,

improved self-esteem and self-motivation. They contended that collaboration

offers the students the skills of working together and enable them to relate more

intimately beyond surface relationship with one another such as understanding

their differences and respect. Glasser (1986) holds the view that children’s

motivation to work depends on the extent to which their psychological needs are

met. Collaborative learning for him motivates students by producing peer support

and making them work together to learn material in great depth and think in more

creative ways.

Holt et al (1991) found that students of different levels of English language

proficiency in the same secondary school classroom hold different linguistic and

cultural diversity. They contended that, learning collaboratively gives students

emotional and academic support that may help them persevere against many

difficulties likely to be faced in school and learn skills needed for interactive

workplace in future.

35
 Cultivating Tolerance and Respect through Collaborative Learning

According to Opare (2002) teachers could cultivate the ability to apply

knowledge, analyze issues, and more especially, the ability to work in harmony

with others from diverse backgrounds if they adopt collaborative learning

strategies in the classroom. He recommended teachers in ethnic prone areas to use

collaborative learning strategies to build trust, respect and confidence among

students using their mixed abilities. This is because children from opposing groups

are most likely to respect the abilities of those they opposed when confronted with

a common problem. Collaborative learning could therefore be used as a medium

for unifying children who are the future adults and opinion leaders.

Collaborative learning as indicated above is not limited to enhancing

academic performance but also practically promotes national integration. Students

could also cultivate tolerance and empowered to resolve differences which are

necessary ingredients for community living. Collaborative learning no doubt

fosters tolerance and mutual respect among learners of different ethnicity and

linguistic backgrounds thereby promoting peace and harmony in society.

Relationships between Collaborative Learning and Individual

Learning

With advance understanding of learning, educators now place greater

emphasis on collaborative learning and the development of participatory learning

in communities to promote the social construction of knowledge. Social

constructivism is one of the two main approaches within the constructivist view of

learning which focuses on the socio-cultural context in which knowledge is built

(Richardson, 1997). It argues that learning takes place in a social milieu, within

36
which the negotiations of shared meaning through social interaction will result in

cognitive dissonance, allowing individual learners to restructure their own

concepts, (Schifer & Simon, 1992, cited in Richardson, 1997). This implies that

cognitive understanding and personal construction of knowledge depend on

relations with others and it proceeds from the social to the individual (Vygotsky,

1978).

Gokhale (1995) conducted a study at the college level to examine the

effectiveness of individual versus collaborative learning in enhancing drills-and-

practice skills and critical thinking skills. The result was that, students who

participated in collaborative learning had performed significantly better on the

critical thinking test than students who studied individually. Johnson and Johnson

(1989) also compared cooperation with competitive and individualistic efforts

which typically resulted in producing higher achievements, greater productivity,

more caring, supportive and committed relationships as well as greater

psychological health, social competence and self-esteem.

In sum, key benefits of collaborative learning to individuals include,

helping individuals develop better judgment through the exposure and resolution

of previously unshared biases; and enabling adults to draw on their previous

experiences by tapping their reservoir of accumulated wisdom and knowledge

(Brookfield, 1986; Bruffee, 1987; Novotny, Seifert and Werner 1991)

Influence of Collaborative Learning on Subject Matter Application

Opare (2002) conducted a study on effective learning and found that when

students learn collaboratively or discuss issues in groups learning is more

effective. Students who learn collaboratively are not only able to state their

opinions but support ideas with reasons. This no doubt facilitates and enhances

37
students’ intellectual functioning and thereby explains why students who studied

together performed better than their counterparts who studied individually.

The Proponents of collaborative learning argue that the active exchange of

ideas within small groups do not only increase interest among the participants but

also promotes critical thinking. Johnson and Johnson (1986) contended that there

is persuasive evidence that cooperative learners act at higher levels of thought and

retain information longer than students who work quietly as individuals. They also

become critical thinkers through the shared learning and dicussion they are

engaged in.

Enhancing Self-Efficacy through Collaborative Learning

Educationists and psychologists have done extensive research in order to

establish the link between collaborative learning and self-efficacy. Opare (2007)

explained that collaborative learning enhances academic achievements because of

its ability to induce and promote self-efficacy in students.

Self-efficacy is defined (Bandura 1997 p.3) as “belief in one’s capabilities

to organize and execute the courses of action required in producing given

attainments” It is concerned then with judgments about personal capability in a

specific domain and individual expectation about capability for performance in

future situations. Self-efficacy therefore can determine “how people feel, think,

behave and motivate themselves”. Self-efficacy is the belief that one is capable of

performing in a certain manner to attain certain goals. It has been described in

other ways as a concept that has evolved in the literature and in society: as the

sense of belief that one’s actions has an effect on the environment (Steinberg,

1998).

38
 Collective efficacy is “a group’s shared belief in its conjoint capabilities to

organize and execute the courses of action required producing given levels of

attainment” (Bandura 1997, p. 477). Perhaps it has more relevance and impact

when applied in collective cultures such as India, Indonesia or China or in the

changing western world (Klassen, 2004).

Bandura (1997) identifies four behavioural mechanisms that are influenced

by self-efficacy perceptions; Commitment to challenging tasks, persistence with

efforts, staying calm during task performance and organizing thoughts in an

analytical manner. People with a high perceived self-efficacy therefore are more

likely to display these characteristics and achieve greater levels of success than

those who have a low perceived self-efficacy and may; fail to attempt difficult

tasks, give up in adverse conditions, become anxious and unable to think clearly.

There is a large amount of diverse research that strongly supports a

relationship between measures of perceived self-efficacy and performance. If this

is to be accepted it’s application to coaching and mentoring as well as many other

areas then it is significant. Bandura (1997) for example has it that a coach can

increase the self-efficacy of the one being coached by enactive mastery

experiences, vicarious experiences, verbal persuasion and physiological states.

Locke & Latham (2002) believe that people have different task goals.

They agreed with Bandura, that people with higher perceptions of self-efficacy

will often set higher goals and remain more committed to them. Bandura (1995)

suggests that a level of optimistic efficacy correlate with optimal functioning. The

impact of social networking, collaborative sharing and creation of content is

having and will continue to have an impact on the way in which we interact,

perform and work towards goals. Bandura (1997) proposed that self-efficacy

39
makes people have confidence and ability to succeed in given tasks and this makes

them to attempt other tasks. Opare (2007) confirmed this by explaining that

individuals who possess high degree of self efficacy are more likely to attempt

challenging tasks, to persist longer at them, and to exert more efforts in the

process.

Academic Self-Concept, Academic Effort and Academic Performance

Self-concept " is the set of perceptions or reference points that the subject has

about himself; . . . the set of characteristics, attributes, qualities and deficiencies,

capacities and limits, values and relationships that the subject knows to be

descriptive of himself and which he perceives as data concerning his identity "

(Hamachek, 1981, quoted by Machargo, 1991: 24). It is the set of knowledge and

attitudes that we have about ourselves; the perceptions that the individual assigns

to him/her self and characteristics or attributes that we use to describe ourselves. It

is understood to be fundamentally a descriptive assessment and has a cognitive

nuance. Academic self-efficacy refers to a student’s belief that he or she can

successfully engage in and complete course or specific academic tasks. These

include accomplishing course outcomes, demonstrating competency skills used in

the course, satisfactorily completing assignments, passing the course, and meeting

the requirements to continue on in his or her major plans (Jimenez, 2006).

Vaughn et al., (2001, p. 54) opine. “Self-concept as a construct has had a

long history within psychology and education because it provides a gauge to

determine the effects of academic and social functioning on the emotional well-

being of the individual”. It is generally viewed as a valued educational outcome.

Self-concept is typically defined as a person’s general composite or collective

view of themselves across multidimensional sets of domain specific- perceptions,

40
based on self-knowledge and evaluation of value or worth of one’s own

capabilities formed through experiences with and interpretations of the

environment (Byrnes, 2003; Eccles, 2005; Snow et al., 1996 quoted by Olatunde,

2010).

Academic performance is shaped by students’ understanding of their individual

learning profile, their self-awareness, their strategic knowledge, and their

motivation to expend the effort and persistence needed to learn (Borkowski, Carr,

Rellinger, & Pressley, 1990; Swanson, Hoskyn, & Lee, 1999, Wong, 1991; cited

by Roditi 2001). Investigation of academic performance in students with learning

disabilities, have also provided us with an improved understanding of the

difficulties these students experience with strategy execution (Harris & Graham,

1992, 1999; Pressley, Symons, Snydes,& Cariglia-Bull, 1989; Stone & Conca,

1993; Swanson et al, 1999, Wong, 1986, 1987; in Roditi, 2001).

In contrast, effort has not been defined systematically but has been included in

definitions of academic motivation as “the ability of the learner to persist with the

task assigned, the amount of time spent on the task, the innate curiousity to learn,

the feeling of efficiency related to an activity, or a combination of variables”

(Poonman, 1997, p. 13, in Roditi, 2001). Roditi (2001) defined effort as a

conscious attempt to achieve a particular good through persistence over time. He

compared the effort and strategy of students with learning disabilities to those

without learning disabilities and noticed that effort was a major contributor to high

academic performance of the average achieving group than in the students with

learning disabilities.

Within the school domain, studies have suggested that prior academic

achievement may be an important influence on an adolescent's academic self-

41
concept. For instance, Marsh and Yeung (1997) found that not only can

adolescents' levels of academic self-concept affect their later performance in

school, but their self-concepts are also influenced by their prior academic

achievement, as indicated by their grades and their test scores. Hence, the

relationship between academic self-concept and academic achievement seems to

be reciprocal in nature, with each affecting the other. Marsh (1994) also found a

link between students' test scores and grades, and their levels of academic self-

concept. This means that students who score well on tests tend to receive higher

grades in school, which in turn leads to their having higher levels of academic self-

concept.

A number of studies have supported the contention that positive self-concept

and academic achievement are closely interwoven (Beck, 1984). Fitts (1972) has

suggested that persons with optimal self-concept are apt to use their intellectual

resources more efficiently. Educators and those involved in improving academic

achievement should, therefore, strive to enhance students' self-concept in order to

obtain maximum results.

Challenges to this set of assumptions have been posed by recent investigators

who have analyzed self-concept and effort in greater depth and have differentiated

general self-concept and academic self-concept. Also, an increasing body of

research has documented positive general self-concepts and strong levels of effort

in students with learning disabilities (McPhail & Stone, 1995; Stone & Conca,

1993 by Roditi 2001).

Gaps in the Literature

The literature is silent on what actually effort is or how to measure effort. With

the exception of Osang (1990), Akubuiro and Joshua (2004) whose studies were

42
done in Nigeria all the others were done outside Africa. A gap is clearly indicated

here since no such studies have been done in Ghana except Opare (2002, 2007)

which were not at the College of Education level. All these researchers used large

samples in different environments and under varied conditions.

Summary

This literature review examined the theories of social learning, internal group

dynamics and collaborative learning as well as elements of collaborative learning.

Empirical studies on group dynamics, developing social skills and collaborative

learning have also been described. The review revealed that social learning theory

was derived from the work of Cornell Montgomery (1843-1904) which proposed

that social learning occurred through four main stages of limitations namely close

contact, imitation of superiors, understanding of concepts and role model

behaviour. Rotter (1954) and Bandura (1977) who expanded on Rotter’s idea as

well as earlier work by Miller and Dollard (1941) which is related to the social

learning theories of Vygostky and have built on the social leaning theory really

contributed in clarifying critical issues that are related to social learning theories.

Bandura’s (1979) and Vygotsky’s (1987) social learning theory as well as Lewin’s

(1948) group dynamics produced the concept collaborative learning. The

relationships between collaborative learning situations were also described. These

include relationship between collaborative learning and academic achievement;

social skills, tolerance, individual learning, subject application, and self-efficacy.

Others include: the relation between academic self-concept and academic ability,

and academic effort and academic performance.

The literature revealed conditions necessary for successful collaborative

learning such as positive interdependence, group processing, individual

43
accountability, shared leadership, promotive interaction, equal participation and

social skills. The review also revealed that both facilitators and learners are jointly

responsible for creating a congenial environment for successful collaborative

learning and that the facilitator takes lead in creating group culture (Brookfield,

1986). It also called for the roles of the learner to be shifted from listener, observer

and note taker to problem solver, contributor, and discussant (MacGregor, 1990).

The review also revealed that academic effort needs to be defined more carefully,

measured more accurately, and explain what efficient effort is.

In sum, the empirical studies showed that collaborative learning is an effective

instructional strategy that has worked well to satisfy the needs of different students

at different levels. Collaborative learning as seen in this review is very beneficial

as it enhances self-efficacy, critical thinking, high academic achievement and

productivity, and the development of social skills among others.

44
 CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

This chapter describes population, sample and method of sample selection.

It also describes the research design, instruments used and procedures followed in

data collection.

This study was preceded by an assertion that revealed that students of

Bimbilla College of Education usually performed below average in the semester

examinations. As a tutor of the college, I also observed that the students generally

have poor attitude towards learning. It was also noticed that students could not

manage their time well as low academic achievers. This was because students

appeared to have no specific study schedules. This was observed during casual

inspection of students’studies time. As if it were co-incidence, the college

organized seminars on time management and study skills in October 2009 to

enhance the study skills of the students. Later in November 2009, students were

encouraged to study in collaborative groups as a step-up effort to enhance their

academic performance.

Research Design

The research design selected for this research is a correlation research and

specifically a case study since the study is based on only E.P College of Education,

Bimbilla. The study aims at finding out whether there is any relationship between

students’ perception of the internal dynamics of their collaborative learning

groups, effort made and academic performance.

45
 Population

The target population was students of E. P. College of Education,

Bimbilla, numbering 460. The composition of this number included 240 level 100

students of which 44 were females and 196 were males. The level 200 students

were 220. Out of this were 54 females and 166 males. One hundred and fourty

(140) of the level 200 students offered General Arts programme while eigty (80) of

them offered Science and Mathematics programme.

Sample Size

The sample size for the study was 140. This was purposively selected from

the entire student populatio of the college. All 140 level 200 General Arts students

were the respondents of the study. Since they were more than their counterparts in

the Science and Mathematics programme, their number (140) can be representative

of the student propulation. Besides, the General Arts students were actively

engaged in collaborative learning. The sample size was also proposionally

selected to corespond with the number of females and males in the 140 stdents of

the General Arts Progrmme.

Instrumentation

The principal research instrument used in this research is questionnaire.

The instrument was designed by the researcher to collect data from the sampled

students.

Questionnaire, according to Amedahe (2002), consists of a list of questions

or statements relating to the aims of the study, the hypotheses and research

questions to be verified and answered of which the respondent is required to

answer by writing. The questionnaire contained close-ended and open-ended items

in two sections. The items in section A were on personal data whilst in section B

46
the items were centered on group internal dynamics, self-concept and effort. Open-

ended and close-ended items were used to enable the researcher obtain as much

detail information as possible from the respondents. The close-ended items had

options from which the respondents could choose (in the case of the likert-scale

type). The options were arranged in a six-point form low to high order such as

never, seldom, occasionally, some of the time, most of the time and always.

The open-ended items did not have pre-determined set of responses and

thus the respondent was at liberty to provide any information he/she deemed fit.

The intention was to allow the respondents to think and describe the reason in their

own words. The open-ended items therefore were to ensure a wider variety of

responses that reflect opinions of respondents. Easterby-Smith, Thorpe and Lowe

(1991) suggest that this increases the possibility of the researcher obtaining

unanticipated perspectives and insightful suggestions on issues that were not

predicted. Similarly, Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) opine that open-ended items

allow more freedom of response, they are easy to construct and permit follow-up

by researchers. However, Fraenkel and Wallen add that open-ended items are

disadvantageous for reasons such as: responses tend to be inconsistent in length

and content across respondents; both questions and responses are subject to

misinterpretation; and they are harder to tabulate. Since it is difficult to tabulate

and perform statistical analysis on open-ended items, the researcher grouped

similar responses together before applying statistical analysis on the responses.

The close-ended items provided a set of options for the respondents

to choose from. This is because it is very easy to answer close-ended items.

Respondents could rush through without taking any time to think about the options

before answering them. Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) point out that the close-ended

47
item “enhances consistency of response across respondents, easier and faster to

tabulate and more popular with respondents” (p. 440).

The researcher thought it wise to use both open-ended and close-ended

items in order to reduce tension and fatigue during the data analysis. This

combination of both open-ended and close ended questions was to make it

relatively easy for respondents to respond to the items without tiring them out.

According to Kerlinger (1973), the questionnaire is widely used for

collecting data in educational research because it is effective for securing

information about practices and condition for inquiring into the opinion and

attitudes of respondents. Koul (1997) noted that questionnaire is a popular means

of collecting all kinds of data in research. He explained that it is usually used in

educational research to obtain information about certain conditions and practices

and inquire into opinions and attitudes of individual or a group. Nwana (1981) on

the other hand outlined some merits of questionnaire over other instruments. He

stated among other things that questionnaire is useful if the respondents cannot

give information in the project unless complete anonymity is guaranteed. He also

explained that questionnaires are useful if the population is widely distributed

geographically and not enough time and personnel and other resources are

available for data collection. He added that questionnaire is appropriate if the

respondents need to look up some records to be able to respond appropriately.

Koul and Nwana therefore provided enough reasons for the researcher’s choice of

questionnaire over other instruments.

Though Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) critique that questionnaire may be

unclear or seemingly ambiguous and may be responded wrongly, or may not give

respondents chance to react verbally to the items of particular interest or

48
importance, the researcher used it because he could give it to large number of

students at the same time. Section A of the questionnaire collected personal data of

respondents. Section B elicited information from students on whether they were

engaged in collaborative learning, reasons for involving themselves in it and

benefits gained. Section B also had questions on group membership which include

items on group processing, interaction, interdependence, social skills, equal

participation, leadership, accountability, self-concept and efforts. Students were

made to indicate the extent to which they practice these in their groups or

otherwise. The researcher also used common, everyday language in constructing

questionnaire items to facilitate understanding.

Data Collection Procedure

The main procedure used to collect data on the relationships between

students participating in collaborative learning and academic performance was

structured questionnaire. It is generally described as the oldest and the most

respected conversation between researchers and respondents despite their shortfall

of misinterpretations of items and probable high mortality rate (low return rate),

the questionnaire was found to be the most appropriate instrument. The

questionnaires for the sampled students were hand-delivered to them by the

researcher. The administration of the questionnaire was done in the students’

classroom. The purpose of the study was explained to them. They were also taken

through all the questionnaire items and anything that was not clear was explained

to them. They were given the opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification

on any item that might seem ambiguous to them.One hundred and fourty (140)

questionaires were given out. They were given ample time to independently

respond to the items at their own convenience. All one hundred and forty (140)

49
answered questionnaires were retrieved from the respondents the same day. The

return rate was very high, 100%. The high percentage of the retrieval of the

answered questionaire resulted from good measures put in place to ensure high

rate of return

Pre-Testing of Questionnaire

The questionnaire was pre-tested to determine the validity and reliability of

the items before using them for the actual study. This was done to solve some of

the problems of questionnaire as indicated by Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) is that a

pre-test of the questionnaire “ can reveal ambiguities, poorly worded questions

that are not understood, and unclear choices, and can also indicate whether the

instructions to the respondents are clear” (p. 441). This well advised the

researcher to try the questionnaire out with 10 students from Science and

Mathematics programme of E. P. College of Education, Bimbilla who weren not

part of the study. The pilot test enabled the researcher to assess the appropriateness

of the questionnaire items and to verify whether the items could easily be read and

understood.

Both face and content validity of the items were determined and

established following a rigorous assessment of the items to find out their

appropriateness as far as the research items are concerned. In addition, most of the

items were designed such that respondents were only required to tick although a

few others gave the respondents the opportunity to express their views beyond the

close-ended options. This helped to determine the clarity of the instrument, the

problems to be encountered in the main administration and the reliability of the

instrument. It also helped to test the planned statistical methods for the data

analyses. After a critical examination of data obtained, through the pilot study, a

50
few questions which were not clear were reframed. These were retested on few

students who were part of the sampled population and responses were in line with

expectation. This was justified on the grounds of ascertaining the reliability of the

questionaire.

Data Analysis Procedure

The completed questionnaire were collected and edited for consistency.

The key responses given by the respondents were prepared from the master list for

the open-ended items. Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used to

analyze obtained data. Percentages and mean values were calculated. The

Pearson’s product moment correlation was the main inferential statistics used to

determine the relationship between students’ perception of the internal dynamics

of their collaborative learning groups and academic performance as well as effort

made.

All the research questions were designed to address specific issues of the

research. The discussion of the research questions were preceded by explanation of

demographic information.

One of the items was designed to find out whether students actually

engaged in collaborative learning. Items of the questionnaire were analyzed using

frequency and percentage distribution. Research question one was concerned with

students’ perception of the internal dynamics of their collaborative learning

groups. Data yielded by the frequency and percentage distribution of items 3 to 12

produced answers for this question. Research question two was to find out the

extent of students’ perception of internal dynamics and how their academic

performance is related. Pearson’s product moment correlation was used to analyze

the data because all the data were measured on a six point likert-type scale.

51
 Question three was to find out the extent to which student’s self-concept of

academic ability and their perception of the internal dynamics of their

collaborative groups are related. Here again Pearson’s product moment correlation

was used since they were all on six point likert-type scale.

Question four was to find out the extent to which students’ self-concept

and their academic ability are related. The same Pearson’s correlation product

moment was used to analyze the data.

The purpose of question five was to find out the relation between students

academic effort and their academic performance. Pearson’s correlation was again

used to analyze the data.

52
 CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This Chapter presents the results and discussion. The results reported on

and discussed here are based on the answers for the research questions. The data

analysis was first done to determine the distribution of respondents by gender and

age. The distribution of the respondents by gender is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Distribution of respondents by gender

Valid No. % Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Male 88 62.9 62.9 62.9

Female 52 37.1 37.1 100.0

Total 140 100.0 100.0

As the data in Table 1 show, males outnumber females in the sample by a

wide margin of (36)25.8% of male over females. This is not strange, since in the

student population of E.P. College of Education, Bimbilla, there are more males

than females, and also because the sample was selected on a proportional basis.

The next item under discussion is age. The distribution of the respondents

by age group is presented in Table 2.

53
 Table 2: Distribution of respondents by age group

Age Range No. % Valid Cumulati

Percent Percent

Valid less than 21 14 10.0 10.1 10.1

21-25 87 62.14 62.6 72.7

26-30 36 25.7 25.9 98.6

31+ 3 2.1 2.14 100.0

Total 140 100.0

As the data indicate in table 2, the modal group is 21-25 year-old group

(62.6%). This is an indication that the respondents are quite matured in terms of

age.

The need to know the statistics of students’ engagement in collaborative

learning was considered. Respondents were asked if they belonged to a

collaborative learning group. This was necessary to obtain information about the

number involved for accurate analysis. The responses are indicated in Table 3.

Table 3: Distribution of respondents in collaborative learning groups

Item No. % Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Yes 137 97.9 98.6 98.6

No 3 2.1 1.4 100.0

Total 140 100.0

54
 From Table 3, it is clear that 98.6% (137) of the respondents indicated that

they were engaged in group learning whilst 2.1% (3) were not. This indicates that

almost all the respondents learn collaboratively.

Answers to the Research Questions

The data analysis was guided by five research questions. The data and the

results producing the answers for the research questions are presented in the

sections that follow.

Research Question: 1

What is students’ perception of the internal dynamics of their

collaborative learning contexts?

To get an answer for this research question, respondents were asked

whether in their perception the following situations characterized their

collaborative learning contexts. The conditions are mutual interdependence,

promotive interaction, group processing, social skills, equal participation,

individual accountability and shared leadership. The perceptions are presented in

Table 4. Students were asked whether they perceived that the success of the whole

group depended on the success of the individuals in the group. Respondents were

required to indicate on a six point likert scale whether interdependence existed in

their collaborative learning contexts.

55
 Table 4: Respondents’ perception of their collaborative learning
contexts
Conditions Positive Perception Negative Perception

No. % No %

Mutual interdependence 117 83.7 23 16.3

Promotive interaction 123 87.8 17 12.2

Group processing 119 85.0 21 15.0

Social skills 86 61.3 54 38.7

Equal participation 121 86.4 19 13.6

Individual accountability 91 64.9 49 35.2

Shared leadership 114 81.4 26 18.6

Table 4 presents the responses. In Table 4, we see that the majority of the

student (117 representing 83.7%) perceived that positive interdependence exists in

their learning groups. On the other hand only 23 respondents representing 16.3%

did not see any interdependence working in their groups. This answers the

question whether members of the group perceive that the success of individuals

depended on the success of the group. This confirms the assertion of Opare (2007)

that the heart of collaborative learning is interdependence which means members

of the group depend on each other so much such that they either swim or sink

together depending on the total effect of individual efforts.

With regard to promotive interaction, the respondents were asked to

indicate whether or not this condition characterized their group learning context.

From Table 4, we can see that majority of the respondents (123 or 87.8%)

indicated, that they used questioning and discussion to help solve their learning

56
problems and to promote interaction whilst 17 respondents representing 12.2%

gave negative responses.

Group processing is one of the characteristics of good collaborative

learning contexts. Respondents were asked to indicate on a six point likert scale

extent to which their learning group contexts were characterized by this condition.

The responses to this question as indicated in item 6 show clearly that majority of

the respondents (119 or 85.0%) gave positive responses that the success of their

groups and their members were constantly monitored. The views of the majority

seem to confirm the idea of Opare (2007) that self evaluation and monitoring of

individuals and group members is necessary for effective collaborative learning.

The question on social skills was intended to find out from students

whether they had any mechanism put in place in their peer learning group to

motivate, criticize or reward members. Respondents were asked to indicate on a

six point likert scale whether or not they had a way of rebuking lazy members and

for rewarding hard working members. The responses of the students as presented

in Table 4 has 86 (61%) majority positive responses to the question as against 54

(38.7%) negative responses. The high percentage of 61.3% positive responses

confirms the findings of Johnson and Johnson (1991) that peer interaction

promotes the development of social skills such as leadership, decision making,

trust building, communication and conflict management.

Students were asked in this question to describe the condition of

participation. Respondents were asked to indicate whether in their groups members

were tasked equally from time to time to search for information to share with

group members. The responses in Table 4 (item 5) indicated that majority

121(86.4%) said that task was equally distributed to group members. This positive

57
majority response confirmed the findings of Opare (2007) that in a group activity

every member must feel that everybody is important and for that matter equal

participation in the group activity is necessary for the success of the group.

One of the things that characterizes group dynamics that students were

asked to measure is individual accountability. Respondents were to indicate

whether each member of their groups was accountable to the group for task

assigned to them. The 64.9% positive responses presented in Table 4 show that

most of the learning groups had high individual accountability. However, some

groups did not perceive any individual accountability.

Group activities are best carried out through shared leadership or roles

(Doyel et al, 2001). Shared leadership was one of the criteria used to measure or

evaluate the quality of the collaborative learning of the students. Students were to

describe on a six point Likert scale whether leadership in their groups was fairly

distributed. The results in the Table (item 7) present the answer. The positive

responses of 114 representing 81.4% shows that most of the groups had their

leadership roles fairly distributed. On the other hand 26 representing 18.6% of the

respondents did not view leadership in their groups as shared responsibilities but

rather rested in only a few individuals.

The answer to research question one is that the respondents of the sample

generally had positive perception of the internal dynamics of their collaborative

learning contexts since almost 80% gave positive responses.

58
 Research question: 2

To what extent are students’ perception of the internal dynamics of

their collaborative learning groups and their academic performance related?

To arrive at an answer for this question, zero-order correlations between

academic performance and the variables indicating the internal dynamics were

computed. These are presented in Table 5.

Table 5: Correlations between academic performance and internal

dynamic variables
Items Correlation Co-efficient (R)

Mathematic English Science

Positive interdependence -.121 -.013 -.013

Promotive interaction -.117 .041 -.116

Social skills -.097 -.154 -.127

Group processing .007 -.077 -.123

Equal participation -.040 -.157 -.231 (**)

Individual accountability -.111 .066 .152

Shared leadership .013 .144 -.080

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

The answer to reseach question two lies in the responses given by the

respondents regarding the extent to which they felt their membership with a

collaborative learning group boosted their academic performance. In other words

they were required to assess themselves and point out whether their learning with

peers has enabled them to improve on their academic performance or not.

The data in Table 5 show clearly that there is virtually no correlation or

relationship between academic performance and those variables representing the

59
internal dynamics. The exception is that equal participation correlated with

academic performance. This correlation, however, is negative, which suggests that

even though the perception is positive, academic performance is low. The lack of

correlation between these variables and academic performance is not strange. First

from Table 5, one can see clearly that an overwhelming number of the respondents

positively perceived the internal dynamics of their peer learning groups.

Therefore there is very little variation in the distribution of the respondents

by the way the internal dynamics were perceived. That is when most of the

respondents appear to be making almost the same responses, the correlations

cannot be significant. Neither can they be strong. The conclusion in response to

research question two is that there is no significant relationship between one’s

perception of the internal dynamics of one’s group learning and one’s academic

performance. Thus there is no direct relationship between the way one perceives

the internal dynamics on the one hand and one’s academic performance on

another.

Research Question: 3

To what extent is students’ academic self- efficacy related to their

perception of the internal dynamics of their collaborative learning context?

To answer this question the respondents were asked to describe whether

their membership in a collaborative learning group had boosted their academic

self-efficacy. In other words they were to assess themselves and indicate whether

the effort they made by learning with peers influences their academic self

confidence. The responses are shown in Table 6.

60
 Table 6: Relationship between academic self-efficacy and internal
dynamics variables
Academic self-efficacy Interdependence: r =. 168*

Group processing: r=. 058

Interaction: r=.193*

Equal participation: r =. 085

Accountability: r =115*

Shared leadership: r =155*

To answer reseach question three, the correlation between academic self-

efficacy and the various variables indicating the collaborative learning context

were computed. The results are shown in Table 6. The data in the Table 6 show

that academic self-efficacy is related to the way students perceive the internal

dynamics of their collaborative learning context. The exceptions are with the

group processing and equal participation.

The answer to research question three is that academic self-efficacy is

moderately related to the way students perceive their internal dynamics of their

collaborative learning context. In other words, participation in collaborative

learning tends to boost students’ academic self-efficacy moderately.

Research Question: 4

To what extent is students’ academic self-efficacy related to the

academic effort they make?

This question was to find out the extent to which students’ academic self-

efficacy and the academic effort they make are related. To this end, respondents

were asked to agree or disagree with a statement indicating high or low sense of

self- efficacy. The responses are showed in Table 7.

61
 Table 7: Frequency Distribution of Responses on Academic Self-
Efficacy
No. % Valid Cumulative

Percent Percent

Valid Totally Disagree 3 2.1 2.14 2.14

Strongly Disagree 3 2.1 2.14 4.28

Disagree 3 2.1 2.14 6.42

Agree 31 22.1 22.14 28.56

Strongly Agree 70 50.0 50.0 78.56

Totally Agree 30 21.4 21.44 100.0

Total 140 100.0 100.0

The data in Table 7 indicate that about 93.1% of the respondents show a

high sense of academic self-efficacy. This is a sum of those who agree, strongly

agree and totally agree.

The respondents were also asked to indicate the number of hours they

devoted to private study each week. The responses are indicated in the frequency

and percentage distribution shown in Table 8.

62
 Table 8: Effort made on personal studies

Time in No % Valid Cumulative

Hours Percent Percent

Valid 0-1 44 31.4 31.4 31.4

2-3 13 9.3 9.3 40.7

3-4 16 11.4 11.4 52.1

4-5 16 11.4 11.4 63.6

5-6 22 15.7 15.7 79.3

6+ 29 20.7 20.7 100.0

Total 140 100.0 100.0

The data in Table 8 indicate that only about 48% of the respondents spent 4

hours or more each week doing private studies. This suggests that academic effort

is limited.

It means the majority of the students did not spend enough time studying

on their own and hence did not make adequate effort towards learning on their

own. This may be a major factor contributing to their abysmal academic

performance in their semester examinations. This is not an isolated case because it,

somehow, confirms what Roditi (2001) found after comparing the effort and

strategies of students with learning disabilities to those without learning

disabilities and concluding that effort was a major contributor to high academic

performance of average students. This simply means that if students of E P

College of Education, Bimbilla had made adequate effort they would have

improved greatly in their academic performance. The correlation between self-

efficacy and effort was found to be positive but moderate (r = .278)

63
 The answer to research question 4 is that self-concept of academic ability

and academic effort is moderately related.

Research Question: 5

To what extent is students’ academic effort related to their academic

performance?

To answer this question the correlations between efforts (measured in

terms of number of hours spent in studying) and grades in English, Mathematics,

and Science were found. The zero-order correlations are presented in Table 9.

Table 9: Correlation between Effort and Performance Correlations

Effort Grade in Grade in Grade in

Mathematics English Science

Effort Pearson Correlation 1 .107 -.001 .167(*)

Sig. (2-tailed) N .207 .991 .049

Total 140 140 140 140

Grade in Pearson Correlation .107 1 474(**) .564(**)

Mathemat Sig. (2-tailed) N .207 .000 .000

140 140 140 140

Grade Pearson Correlation -.001 474(**) 1 .376(**)

in English Sig. (2-tailed) N .991 .000 .000

140 140 140 140

Grade in Pearson Correlation .167(* .564(**) .376(**) 1

Science Sig. (2-tailed) N .049 .000 .000

140 140 140 140

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

64
 The data in Table 9 show that in this study effort and grades are hardly

related. For example in the case of the entire three subjects the only significant

correlation is effort and performance in science (r =.167*). The rest are all weak

and non-significant.

The above is the answer to research question five. These weak and non-

significant relationships could be attributed to the obvious lack of effort by

students. For example none of the students spent more than three hours a week

studying on their own.

65
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter contains the summary of the entire research work. Findings,

conclusions drawn from the findings, as well as recommendations are presented.

Also, suggestions for further reseach are presented.

Summary

The purpose of the research was to find out whether there is any

relationship between students’ perception of the internal dynamics of their

collaborative learning contexts on the one hand, and effort and academic

performance on the other, of students of E. P. College of Education, Bimbilla.

The sample size used was one hundred and forty (140) level 200 students

of E. P. College of Education, Bimbilla. The sampling technique employed was

purposive sampling. This technique was adopted because the researcher’s target

was students who were engaged in collaborative learning.

The questionnaire was the main tool for data collection. The items were

both closed-ended and open-ended.The statistical methods used for data analysis

were frequency distributions, percentages, and Pearson’s product moment

correlations.

The main findings of the study as yielded by the answers to the research

questions are presented in this section. The first research question was on students’

perception of the internal dynamics of their learning groups. The question was

designed to specifically find out students’ perceptions of the internal dynamics of

66
their collaborative learning groups. Respondents used conditions such as

interdependence, interaction, group processing, social skills, equal participation in,

individual accountability and shared leadership to describe their collaborative

learning context. The answers to these seven items were very high, positive

responses ranging from 60% to 90%. This is an indication that the respondents

perceived the internal dynamics of their collaborative learning context in positive

terms.

Research question two was on the extent to which students’ perception of

the internal dynamics of their collaborative learning contexts related to their

academic performance. Students were required to point out how learning with

peers has enabled them to improve on their academic performance. No correlation

between academic performance and the internal dynamic variables was found

except in the case of equal participation versus performance in science which has a

correlation of 0.231, significant at 0.05. The answer then is that the way students

perceive the internal dynamics of their collaborative learning contexts does not

bear a direct or linear relationship with their academic performance.

Students were required to answers research question three by describing

the extent to which their academic self- efficacy related to the perception of the

internal dynamics of their collaborative learning contexts. The answer produced

from the responses was that academic self-efficacy is moderately related to the

way students perceive the internal dynamics of their collaborative learning context.

Research question four sought to explain the relationship between the

students’ self-concept of academic ability and their academic efforts. The answer

was that students’ self-concept of academic ability and their academic effort are

67
moderately related since the correlation co-efficient was r=.278 significant at 0.5

which is a positive relation.

Research question five was designed to find out the relationship between

students’ academic effort and academic performance. It was realized that academic

effort and grades in Mathematics, English and Science are hardly related.

Conclusions

The purpose of the study was to find out if there was any relationship

between students’ perception of the internal dynamics of their collaborative

learning contexts, effort made and academic performance. Based on this, and the

answers to the research questions, the following conclusions can be drawn.

The conclusion is that even though most of the students belonged to

collaborative learning groups, and even though they perceived their learning

contexts in positive terms, there was hardly any relationship between the way they

perceived their learning contexts and their academic performance, nor was self-

efficacy and effort related. Effort and performance were not related because most

of the students indicated putting in limited effort in their studies.

Recommendations

The key finding in this study is that there is no correlation between the

academic effort students make on the one hand and their performance in

Mathematics, English and Science. This tends to suggest that students did not

make sufficient effort in learning those subjects. On the basis of this, it is

recommended that the authorities in E.P. College of Education, Bimbilla should

encourage students to spend more time on their own learning to improve their

academic performance in those subjects. This can be done by conducting remedial

classes and quiz competitions for students to motivate them to learn. The school

68
should also create an enabling environment that will support students to spend

more time on private studies. This could also be done by providing good library

and internet facilities as well as conduicive and well furnished classrooms with

good lightening system to facilitate effective learning.

Suggestions for Further Research

Since this study delved into the link beween group learning and academic

performance, it will be a step in the right direction to research into the relationship

between individual learning effort and acadmic performance.

Again, further research is suggested into why students make insuficient

effort in learning English, Mathematic, and Science resulting in poor performance

of these subejects-a key finding of this study.

Further research could investigate whether effort is efficient when it is

flexible, guided by strategies, and well adapted to the task demands.

Finally, the relationship between ability, interest, and effort needs

additional research as the interactions between these processes may help us to

understand the complex relationships that affect the performance of low achieving

students.

69
 REFERENCES

Akubuiro, I. M. & Joshua, M. T. (2004). Self-concept attitude and achievement of

secondary school students in science. Southern Cross River State, Nigeria:

The African Symposium 4, 7.

Amedahe, F. K. (2002). Lecture notes on educational research. University press, UCC.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press.

Bandura, A. (1979). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:

Prentice-Hall.

Bandura, A. (1995) Self-efficacy in changing societies. New York: Cambridge McGraw-

Hill.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy theory: Towards a unifying theory of behavioural

change. Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.

Beck, J. (1984). Self-concept of high school seniors and its relationship to sex,ethnicity,

academic achievement, absenteeism, and delinquency. Unpublished

master's thesis, Texas Women's University, Denton, Texas.

Brookfield, S. D. (1986). Understanding and facilitating adult learning. San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass

Bruffee, K. A. (1987). The art of collaborative learning. Change 19 (2) 42-47.

Brown, R. (1988). Group processes: dynamics within and between groups. New York:

Blackwell.

70
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, (1989). Situated Cognition and Culture of Learning.

Education Researcher. 18 (1).

Bruner, J. (1985). Vygotsky: A historical and conceptual perspective Culture,

communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives, 21-34. London:

Cambridge University Press.

Dashiell, J. F. (1930). An experimental analysis of some group effectiveness: Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology, 25, 190-199(p.293)

Dalton, J., & Smith, S. (1986). Extending children’s special abilities for primary school

classroom. Victoria, Australia: Ministry of Education.

Davidson, N. (1985). Small-group learning and teaching in mathematics: A selective

review of the research. In R. Slavin, S. Sharon, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-

lazaronitz and Schmumk (Eds), Cooperating to Learn, (pp.211-230), New

York: Plenum Press.

Douglas, S.A. (1991). Tutoring as Interaction: Detecting and Repairing Tutoring

Failures. In P. Goodyear (Ed). Teaching Knowledge and Intelligent

Tutoring (pp. 123-148). Norwood, NJ: Ablex

Doyel, M. E. & Smith, M. K. (2001) Born and Bred Leadership, heart and informal

education. London: YMCA George William College/ The Rank

Foundation.

Easterby-Smith, M, Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (1991). Management research: An

introduction. London: Sage Publishers.

Fawcett, L. M. & Garton, A. F. (2005). The effects of peer collaboration on children’s

problem solving ability. British Journal of Educational Psychology.75,

159-169.

Featherstone, H. (1986). Cooperative learning. Harvard Education Letter, 4-6.

71
Fitts, W. H. (1972). The self-concept and performance. Nashville, TN: Dede Wallace

Center.

Forsyth, D. R. Elliot, T. R. & Welsh, J. A. (1991). Multi-dimensional model of groups.

Paper presented at the third annual meeting of the American psychological

society, Washington, DC.

Forsyth, D. R. (1987). Our social World. Pacific Grove, C.A: Borrks/Cole.

Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2000). How to design and evaluate research in

education (4th ed). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.

Gerlach, J. M. (1994). “Is this collaboration?” In Bostworth, K., & Hamilton, S. J.

(Eds), No. 59.

Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. New York: Harper & Row.

Godwin, M. W. (1999) Cooperative learning and social skills: What skills to teach and

how to teach them. Intervention in school and clinic, 33(1), 29-33

Gokhale, A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of

Technology Education 7 (1), 1045-1064

Green, R. G & Gange, J. J. (1983) Social Facilitation: Drie theory and beyond. In. Hill

Higher Education.

Hassen, K. (2010) My College Success Story.Com: What is your learning style?

Retrieved November 20, 2010 from http.//www.empweringsites.com/

Holt, D. D., Chips, B. & Wallace, D. (1991). Cooperative learning in the secondary

school: Maximizing language acquisition, academic achievement and

social development. Washington D.C: NCBE.

Imel, S. (1991) Collaborative Learning in Adult Education. ERIC Digest No 113. U.S.

Jimenez, S. S. (2006). Inspiring academic confidence in the classroom: An investigation

of features of the classroom experience that contribute to the academic self-

72
 efficacy of undergraduate women enrolled in gateway courses. Dissertation

completed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Johnson, R. T., & Johnson, D. W. (1986). Action research: Cooperative learning in the

science classroom. Science and Children, 24, 31-32.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Holubec, E. (1988). Advanced Cooperative Learning.

Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co. 23

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and

research. Edina, MN: Interaction Book Co.

Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, F. P. (1991). Joining Together: Group Theory and Group

Skills (4th ed). Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey; Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. (1993). Circles of learning: cooperation in

the classroom (3rd ed). Edina MN: Interaction Book Co.

Johnson, D. E., & Johnson R. T. (1994). Collaborative learning and argumentation. In P.

Putnick and C. Rogers (Ed). Groups in schools, 66-86 London: Cassell.

Jones, V.F., & Jones, L. S. (2001). Comprehensive classroom management: Creating

communities of support and solving problems. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioural research. (2nd ed). New York: Holt,

Rinehard and Winston Inc.

Klassen, R. M. (2004). Optimism and Realism: A review of self efficacy frome across

cultural perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 39 (3), 205-230.

Klemm, W. R. (1994). Using a formal collaborative paradigm for Veterinary Medical

Education. Texas A & M University College Station, TX 77843 – 4458.

Koul, L. (1997). Methodology of educational research (3rd ed). New Delhi: Vikas

Publishing House. Pvt. Ltd.

73
Kulik, J. A. & Kulik, C. L. (1979). College Teaching. In Peterson and Walberg (Ed),

Research on Teaching: Concepts, findings and implications. Berkeley, CA:

McCutcheon.

Leary, M.R., & Forsyth, D. R. (1987). Attributions of responsibility for collective

endeavours. In. C. Henderick (Ed), Review of personality and social

psychology: Group processess, 8, 167-188 Newbury Park: Sage

Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving social conflict: Selected papers on group dynamics. New

York: Harper

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002) Building a practically useful theory of goal

setting and task motivation: A 35 year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57,

705-717

MacGregor, J. (1990). Collaborative Learning: Shared Inquiry as a Process of Reform.

New Directions for Teaching and Learning. 42: 19-30.

Machargo, J. (1991). The teacher and self-concept in his or her students: theory and

practice. Madrid: Escuela Espanola.

Manayama, D. W., G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D. & Shaw, L. (1981). Effect of

cooperative, competive and individualistic goal structures on achievement:

A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 47-62.

Marsh, H.W. (1994). Using the National Longitudinal Study of 1988 to evaluate

theoretical models of self-concept: The self-description questionnaire.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 439-456.

Marsh, H.W. & Yeung, A. S. (1997). The causal effects of academic self-concept on

academic achievement: Structural equation models of longitudinal data.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 41-54.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York: Free Press.

74
Michaels, J.W. Blommel, J. M., Brocato, R. M., Linkous, R. A., & Rowe, J.S.(1982)

Social facilitation and inhibition in a natural setting. Replication in Social

Psychology, 2, 21-24. (p.285).

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson,J.W.,Clark, R. A. ,& Lowell, E. L. (1953). The

achievement motive. New York: Appletion-Century-Crofts.

McPhail, J. C., & Stone, C. A. (1995). The self-concept of adolescents with learning

disabilities: A review of the literature and a call for theoretical elaboration.

Advances in learning and behavioral pertaining to behavior. 54 (271-290).

Michael, J. S. (1982). Social Facilitation and Inhibition in a Natural Setting. Replication

in Social Psychology, 2, 21-24. (p.285)

Miller, N. & Dollard, J. (1941). Social learning and imitation. New Haven, NJ: Yale

University Press.

Mitnik, R., Recabarren, M., Nussbaum, M., & Soto, A. (2009). Collaborative Robotic in

Montague, M. (1997). Student perception, mathematical problem may

mean two slightly different things, both closely related to mathematical

games: Instruction: A Graph Teaching Experience. Computers &

Education, 53(2), 330-342.

Moore, D. L. & Baron, R. S. (1983). Social Facilitation: “A Physiological analysis In J.

T. Cacioppo & R. Petty” (Eds) Social Psychology. New York: Guiford

Press. (p. 295).

Novotny, A. S.; Seifert, R. G.; & Werner, D. (1991). Collective learning: A Pro-Social

Teaching Strategy for Prison Education. Journal of Correctional Education

42, (2) 80-85.

Nwana, O. C. (1981). Introduction to educational research for student-teachers in

Ibadan: Heinemann Educational Books (Nigeria) Plc.

75
Olatunde, Y. P. (2010). Student’s self-concept and Mathematics achievement in some

secondary school in South Western Nigeria: European Journal of Social

Science. 13 (1) 87-93.

Opare, J. A. (2002). Cooperative learning enhances learners’ application of knowledge.

Zimbabwe Journal of Education Research, 14(2) 125-137.

Opare, J. A. (2007).Simplicities and complexities of the effects of the collaborative

learning context on academic achievement. International Journal of

Education Research, 3(1) 147 – 160.

Opare, J. A. & Eshun, J. (2009).Simplicities and complexities of the effects of the

collaborative learning context on academic achievement. Ghana Journal of

Education: Issues and Practice (1)53-63; Faculty of Education University

of Cape Coast.

Osang, A.O. (1990). Influence of self-concept and motivation on performance in

mathematics in senior secondary school in Inkom Local Government Area,

Cross River State, Nigeria. Unpublished Bachelors Degree Project,

University of Calabar, Nigeria

Pessin, J. (1933). The comparative effects of social and mechanical stimulation on

memorizing. American Journal of Psychology, 45, 263-270.

Pessin, J., & Husband, R. W. (1933). Effects of social stimulation on human maze

learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 28, 148-154.

Richardson, A. (1997). Verbalizer-visualizer: A cognitive style dimension. Journal of

Mental Imagery, 1 (1), 109-126.

Rochelle, J. & Teasley, S. D. (1995). The construction of shared knowledge in

Collaborative problem solving. In C.O. Malley, (Ed) Computer supported

Collaborative learning. (pp 69-97) Berling: Springler.

76
Roditi, B. (2001) The Free library, Social Science Education- Learning disability

quarterly March. 22,2001.1 U. S.

Roger, T. & Johnson, D. W. (1994). An overview of cooperative learning on J.

Thousand, A Villa and A. Nevin (Eds) creativity and collaborative

learning. New Jersey; Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Rotter, J. B. (1954). Social learning and clinical psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N. J.:

Prentice- Hall

Shaw, M. E. (1981). Group dynamics: the Psychology of small group behavior. New

York: McGraw Hill (p. 292).

Sheridan, J. (1989) Rethinking Andragogy: The Case for Collaborative Learning in

Continuing Higher Education. Journal of Continuing Higher Education 37,

(2) 2-6.

Slavin, R. E. (1987). “Cooperation Learning: Student Teams” (2nd ed). Washingtion,

DC: National Education Association.

Slavin, R. E. (1991).Cooperative learning and student achievement. In R.E. Slavin (Ed),

School and classroom organization. (pp.52-54),Hill-Sdale, NJ. Erlbaun.

Slavin, R. E. (1993).Cooperative learning in OECD countries: Research, practice and

prevalence. Centre for research on effective schooling for disadvantaged

students, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Smith, B. L., & MacGregor, J. T. (1992). “What is collaborative learning?" National

Center on Postsecondary Teaching, Learning, and Assessment at

Pennsylvania State University.

Steinberg, L. (1998). Adolescence. Social self-efficacy and interpersonal stress in

adolescence. Social Behavior and Personality: New York: McGraw-Hill

College companies.

77
Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel

(Ed.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Turner J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self- categorization theory. New

York; Bassil Black Well. P. 292-393.

Underwood, J., Underwood, G. & Wood, D. (2000). When does gender matter?

Interactions during computer-based problem solving. Learning and

Instruction, 10 (5) 447-462.

Vaughn, S., Elbaum, B., & Boardman, A. G. (2001). The social functioning of students

with learning disabilities: Implications for inclusion. Exceptionality, 9 (2),

47-65.

Vygotsky, L (1962) Thought and language Cambridge. MA: MIT Press

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological

processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Webb, N.M. & Cullion L.K. (1983). Group interaction and achievement overtime.

American Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 411-423.

Webb, N. M. (1980). Group processes in an interaction group. Quarterly Newsletter of

Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, (2), 10-15.

Wells, G. & Claxton, G. (2002).Learning for life in the 21st century: Socio-cultural

perspective on the future of education. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing.

Wright, S.S. & Forsyth, D. R. (1991). Group membership and collective identity:

consequences of self-esteem. Journal of social and clinical psychology,

(23), 234-242.

Zillmann, D., & Paulus, P. B. (1993). Spectators: Recreations to sports events and

effects on athletic performance. In R. N. singer N. Murphey & I. K.

78
Tennant (Eds). Handbook of research on sport Psychology. New York:

Macmillan (p. 295).

79
 APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

QUESTIONAIRE FOR STUDENTS OF E.P. COLLEGE OF

EDUCATION BIMBILLA

This questionnaire is being used for a study by a student in the Faculty of

Education, University of Cape Coast. It is meant solely for academic purposes.

You are therefore assured of confidentiality and annimosity.

You are, therefore, kindly requested to answer all questions that follow as frankly

and openly as possible.

Thank you in advance.

SECTION ‘A’: PERSONAL DATA

Please tick [√] against the one which is applicable to you.

1. Gender:

Male [ ]

Female [ ]

2. Age (in years)

1. Less than 21 [ ]

2. 21-25 [ ]

3. 26-30 [ ]

4.31+ [ ]

SECTION ‘B’: GROUP MEMBERSHIP

3. Do you have a study group or groups that you often study with?

YES [ ] NO [ ]

Please provide short statements in response to question 4.

4. Why did you join a study group?

80
 ……………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………………..

Please select the alternative below that best describes your opinion about your

group (Q5-Q14).

INTERDEPENDENCE

5. Each member of my group believes that the success of the whole group

depends on the success of each individual member of the group.

1. Never [ ]

2. Seldom [ ]

3. Occasionally [ ]

4. Some of the time [ ]

5. Most of the time [ ]

6. Always [ ]

PROMOTIVE INTERACTION

6. In my study group, we use questioning and discussions to help us

overcome our learning problems.

1. Never [ ]

2. Seldom [ ]

3. Occasionally [ ]

4. Some of the time [ ]

5. Most of the time [ ]

6. Always [ ]

81
 SOCIAL SKILLS

7. In my study group, we have our ways of rebuking lazy members and for

rewarding hard working members.

1. Never [ ]

2. Seldom [ ]

3. Occasionally [ ]

4. Some of the time [ ]

5. Most of the time [ ]

6. Always [ ]

GROUP PROCESSING

8. In my group, we constantly examine ourselves to make sure we are

progressing in our studies.

1. Never [ ]

2. Seldom [ ]

3. Occasionally [ ]

4. Some of the time [ ]

5. Most of the time [ ]

6. Always [ ]

EQUAL PARTICIPARTION

9. In my study group, each member is asked from time to time to search

for information to explain or share with members.

1. Never [ ]

2. Seldom [ ]

3. Occasionally [ ]

4. Some of the time [ ]

82
5. Most of the time [ ]

6. Always [ ]

INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNTABILITY

10. In my study group no member hides behind the back of any member to

make almost no contribution.

1. Never [ ]

2. Seldom [ ]

3. Occasionally [ ]

4. Some of the time [ ]

5. Most of the time [ ]

6. Always [ ]

SHARED LEADERSHIP

11. In my study group, any member who is leading the discussion at any

time is the leader at the time.

1. Never [ ]

2. Seldom [ ]

3. Occasionally [ ]

4. Some of the time [ ]

5. Most of the time [ ]

6. Always [ ]

ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY 1

12. My membership in the study group has boosted my confidence in

myself.
1. Totally disagree [ ]

2. Strongly disagree [ ]

83
3. Disagree [ ]

4. Agree [ ]

5. Strongly agree [ ]

6. Agree totally [ ]

ACADEMIC SELF-EFFICACY 2

13. I have learned through group study that I am capable of doing well in

my studies.

1. Totally disagree [ ]

2. Strongly disagree [ ]

3. Disagree [ ]

4. Agree [ ]

5. Strongly agree [ ]

6. Agree totally [ ]

EFFORT

14. On the average, for how many hours a week do you study on your
own?
1. 01 [ ]

2. 02 [ ]

3. 03 [ ]

4. 04 [ ]

5. 05 [ ]

6. 6+ [ ]

Please, do not answer question 15.

15. CGPA……………………………………

84
 APPENDIX B

Final results at grading point in classes for 2007-2009

Year CGPA 1st Class 2nd Upper 2nd Lower 3rd Class Pass Referrers

2007 3.6-4.0

3.0-3.5

2.5-2.9

2.0-2.4 20

1.0-1.9 123

2008 3.6-4.0

3.0-3.5 1

2.5-2.9 4

2.0-2.4 78

1.0-1.9 60 6

2009 3.6-4.0

3.0-3.5

2.5-2.9 6

2.0-2.4 52

1.0-1.9 32

85
 Appendix C

E. P. College of Education-Bimbilla

Entry Behaviour of Students with Grade in Core Subjects

Admission records of 2008 and 2009

Year Subject G R A D E

‘A’ ‘B’ ‘C’ ‘D’ ‘E’

2008 English - - 13 30 197

2008 Maths 1 28 53 61 93

2008 Scienc - 11 44 80 105

2009 English - 2 85 79 143

2009 Maths 3 35 103 64 106

2009 Scienc - 29 74 78 122

86
 Appendix D

E. P. College of Education, Bimbilla Staff Development and Progress

Report 2007-2010

Year No of staff No left for Percentage

l ate studies

2007 30 4 13.3

2008 32 7 21.9

2009 32 7 21.9

2010 32 6 18.8

Total 32 24 75.9

87