Evaluation of cooperative learning in science education: A mixed-meta method study

Mehmet Diyaddin Yaşar 1, Mustafa Erdoğan 2, Veli Batdı 3, Ülkü Cinkara 3 *
More Detail
1 Harran University, Şanlıurfa, TÜRKİYE
2 Ministry of National Education, Şanlıurfa, TÜRKİYE
3 Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, TÜRKİYE
* Corresponding Author
EUR J SCI MATH ED, Volume 12, Issue 3, pp. 411-427. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/14872
Published: 24 July 2024
OPEN ACCESS   442 Views   318 Downloads
Download Full Text (PDF)

ABSTRACT

The aim of this study is to reveal the effect of cooperative learning method in science education on academic achievement with mixed-meta method. For this purpose, various national and international databases were searched, and among 81 articles and 37 theses covering the period between 2001 and 2022, 46 articles and 31 theses that included pre-test-post-test data and included the statistical information required for experimental or quasi-experimental analysis were preferred for meta-analysis. The effect size of 77 studies included in the analysis was found to be g = 1.070 and it was seen that the cooperative learning method in science education had a positive and large effect on academic achievement. On the other hand, as a result of the meta-thematic analysis, it was determined that the cooperative learning method increased academic achievement due to the meaningful and permanent realisation of learning. In addition, thanks to the activities in which the student plays a central role, it is understood that it develops positive attitudes towards the science course depending on the results such as making the course enjoyable and fun, making it popular and interesting; it is effective in gaining 21st century skills such as creativity, communication and cooperation, productivity and entrepreneurship. It is thought that examining the effects of cooperative learning method in science education with mixed-meta method will contribute to the literature by providing comprehensive results on the subject.
Keywords: cooperative learning method, mixed-meta method, meta-analysis, meta-thematic analysis, academic achievement, attitude

CITATION

Yaşar, M. D., Erdoğan, M., Batdı, V., & Cinkara, Ü. (2024). Evaluation of cooperative learning in science education: A mixed-meta method study. European Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 12(3), 411-427. https://doi.org/10.30935/scimath/14872

REFERENCES

  • Açıkgöz, K. Ü. (2008). Aktif öğrenme [Active learning]. Biliş Basımevi.
  • Bağcı Kılıç, G., Haymana, F., & Bozyılmaz, B. (2008). Analysis of the elementary science and technology curriculum of turkey with respect to different aspects of scientific literacy and scientific process. Education and Science Journal, 33(150), 53-63.
  • Bakioğlu, A., & Göktaş, E. (2018). An educational policy making method: Meta analysis. Medeniyet Eğitim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 1(2), 35-54
  • Barata Aksoy, Ş. (2017). Human and environment’ unite of 7th grade science and technology course; cooperative learning models’ effects on the student performance (sample of Elazığ Province) [Unpublished MA thesis]. Fırat University.
  • Batdı, V. (2019). Meta-thematic analysis: Sample applications. Anı Publications.
  • Batdi, V. (2021). The use of technology in language teaching to foreigners: A mixed-meta method. Milli Eğitim Dergisi, 50(1), 1213-1244. https://doi.org/10.37669/milliegitim.942631
  • Batdı, V., Öztaş, C., & Talan, T. (2021). Analysis of constructive approach applications in science lesson through mixed-meta method. Dicle University Ziya Gökalp Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 40, 33-44. https://doi.org/10.14582/DUZGEF.2021.175
  • Bayrakçeken, S., Doymuş, K., & Doğan, A. (2013). İşbirlikli öğrenme modeli ve uygulanması [Cooperative learning model and its application]. Pegem Academy.
  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386
  • Bozdağan, A. E., Taşdemir, A., & Demirbaş, M. (2006). The effect of cooperative learning method in science education on improving graphic interpretation skills of the students. Inonu University Journal of the Faculty of Education, 7 (11), 23-36.
  • Büyüköztürk, Ş., Çakmak, E. K., Akgün, Ö. E., Karadeniz, Ş., & Demirel, F. (2020). Scientific research methods. Pegem Akademi.
  • Camnalbur, M., & Bayraktar, D. (2018). The effect of collaborative learning on academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. Journal of the Human and Social Science Researches, 7(2), 1149-1172. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.378623
  • Camnalbur, M., & Erdoğan, Y. (2008). A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction: Turkey sample. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 8(2), 497-505.
  • Cheung, A. C. K., & Slavin, R. E. (2016). How methodological features affect effect sizes in education. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 283-292. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16656615
  • Cohen, R. D., Woseth, D. M., Thisted, R. A., & Hanauer, S. B. (2000). A metaanalysis and overview of the literature on treatment options for left-sided ulcerative colitis and ulcerative proctitis. The American Journal of Gastroenterology, 95(5), 1263-1276. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1572-0241.2000.01940.x
  • Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483348858.n11
  • Doymuş K., Şimşek, Ü., & Bayrakçeken, S. (2004) The effect of cooperative learning method on academic achievement and attitude in science class. Journal of Turkish Science Education, 1(2), 103-115.
  • Efe, R., Hevedanlı, M., Ketani, Ş., Çakmak, Ö., & Efe, H.A. (2008). İşbirlikli öğrenme teori ve uygulama [Cooperative learning theory and practice]. Eflatun Yayınevi.
  • Er, M. (2012). Boosting foreign language self-concept in language classrooms through cooperative learning activities. Procedia-Social and Behavioural Sciences, 69, 535-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.443
  • Erez, A., Bloom, M. C., & Wells, M. T. (1996). Using random rather than fixed effects models in meta-analysis: Implications for situational specificity and validity generalization. Personnel Psychology, 49(2), 275-306. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1996.tb01801.x
  • Gillies, R. M., & Boyle, M. (2010). ‘Teachers’ reflections on cooperative learning: Issues of implementation’. Teaching and Teacher Education, 26(4), 933-940. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2009.10.034
  • Herrmann, K. (2013). The impact of cooperative learning on student engagement: Results from an intervention. Active Learning in Higher Education, 14, 175-187. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787413498035
  • İleri, Y. E., Selvi, M., & Köse, M. (2020). The effect of a cooperative learning approach on academic success in science education: A meta-analysis study. Ihlara Journal of Educational research, 5(1), 51-84.
  • Kaymak, S., Kassymbek, Z., Kalamkas, A., & Saydenov, F. (2021). The effect of cooperative learning on students’ academic achievement. Management, 9(6), 495-503. https://doi.org/10.17265/2328-2185/2021.06.009
  • Kırbaş, A. (2010). Effect of the collective learning method on the improvement of listening skills of primary school eighth [Unpublished PhD dissertation]. Atatürk University.
  • Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. SAGE.
  • Mendo-Lázaro, S., León-del-Barco, B., Polo-del-Río, M., & López-Ramos, V. (2022). The impact of cooperative learning on university students’ academic goals. Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.787210
  • MoNE [Ministry of National Education]. (2018). Science education program (primary and secondary 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. grades). MEB Publications.
  • Muawanah, U. (2023). The impact of cooperative learning method on learning motivation and academic achievement of elementary school students. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research and Analysis, 6(12), 5920-5925. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijmra/v6-i12-57
  • Parveen, Q., & Batool, S. (2012). Effect of cooperative learning on achievement of students in general science at secondary level. International Education Studies, 5(2), 154-158. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v5n2p154
  • Ried, K. (2006). Interpreting and understanding meta-analysis graphs: A practical guide. Australian Family Physician, 35(8), 635-638.
  • Rosenberg, M., Adams, D., & Gurevitch, J. (2000). MetaWin statistical software for meta-analysis. Version 2.0. Sinauer Associates Inc.
  • Rosenthal, R. (1979). The “file drawer problem” and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
  • Savaş, B. (2011). Öğrenme ve öğretim stratejileri [Teaching and teaching strategies]. M. Arslan (Ed.), Öğretim ilke ve yöntemleri [Teaching principles and methods] (pp. 122-148). Anı Publications.
  • Schmidt, F. L., Oh, I.-S., & Hayes, T. L. (2009). Fixed- versus random effects models in meta-analysis: Model properties and an empirical comparison of differences in results. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 62, 97-128. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711007X255327
  • Şahin, A. E., & İnce, N., B. (2016). A comparison of combination classroom teachers’ and single-grade teachers’ job satisfaction and burnout levels. Hacettepe University Journal of Education, 31(2), 391-406.
  • Thalheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2002). How to calculate effect sizes from published research: A simplified methodology. Work-Learning Research, 1, 1-9.
  • Yıldırım, A., & Şimşek, H. (2018). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri [Qualitative research methods in the social sciences]. Seçkin Publications.
  • Yıldız, G. (2020). Impact of microteaching practices based on cooperative learning on pre-service science teachers’ science teaching efficacy beliefs and their beliefs about implementing cooperative learning in science teaching [Unpublished MA thesis]. Çukurova University.
  • Yılmaz, F., & Karaçöp, A. (2018). The effects of laboratory activities through cooperative learning jigsaw technique on the achievements of primary school seventh grade students at the unit of the electricity in our lives. İnönü University Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 19(2), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.17679/inuefd.291215