Achievement effects do not differ significantly across cooperative learning techniques; unstructured and STAD show the highest point estimates¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · quant-synthesis r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The highest average effect sizes were for unstructured (d+ = 0.91) and STAD techniques (d+ = 0.72), but no significant differences were seen among the techniques' effect sizes. → Gulfer Capar 2015

Evidence¶

Gulfer Capar 2015¶

Gulfer Capar, Kamuran Tarim. (2015). Efficacy of the Cooperative Learning Method on Mathematics Achievement and Attitude: A Meta-Analysis Research. Educational Sciences Theory & Practice. https://doi.org/10.12738/estp.2015.2.2098

q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

Moderator analysis by cooperative learning technique (STAD, EKM, LT, TAI, unstructured, undefined) reported in Table 3 of the meta-analysis. The article reports no significant differences among techniques in terms of the general effect size.

"it was observed that the most effective cooperative learning method for increasing mathematics achievement was unstructured ( d+ = 0.91) and STAD techniques ( d+ = 0.72). For the effect among the grades, no significant differences were seen among the effect sizes for seven grades."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Achievement effects of cooperative learning do not differ significantly across mathematics sub-fields, though geometry and algebra show the highest point estimates — related
• In secondary-school research, cooperative learning beat frontal teaching in 68% of comparisons, with STAD most and Jigsaw least successful — related
• Structured and ill-structured mCSCL teaching methods show similar effects; competitive methods (TGT, STAD) were not significant — related
• The effect of cooperative learning on mathematics achievement differs significantly by implemented technique, with multiple intelligence-assisted and STAD techniques largest — reports the opposite