Group Investigation Effects on Achievement, Motivation, and Perceptions of Students in Singapore

IVY GEOK CHIN TAN

National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

CHRISTINE KIM ENG LEE

National Institute of Education Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

SHLOMO SHARAN
Tel-Aviv University, Israel

ABSTRACT In an experiment conducted in 7 eighth-grade (Ages 13-14) classes in Singapore, the authors evaluated the effects of the group investigation method of cooperative learning versus the effects of the traditional whole-class method of instruction on students' academic achievement and on their motivation to learn. The authors also investigated students' perceptions of group investigation. Students in group investigation and in whole-class instruction advanced to the same extent over the course of the experiment. Neither method was more effective academically than the other method. As expected, the high-achieving students had significantly higher academic achievement than did the low-achieving students. The group investigation method did not have differential effects on the 2 groups of high and low achievers. Group investigation affected high achievers' motivation to learn on the Criteria subscale only. Key words: achievement, motivation, and perceptions; cooperative learning; group investigation

his experimental study took place at the beginning of a new century, when Singapore was changing its education system to ensure economic success in the new globalized and knowledge-based economy. In 1996, the Ministry ofEducation commissioned an external review team to examine the prevailing school curriculum and to make recommendations for education reform in the light of future economic, technological, and social changes. In the review report, the external review team stated that,
[Singapore] students must be Learners, Creators and Communicators to meet the demands of the next century Learners in the sense that they must view education as a lifelong process and develop a passion for continuous learning; Creators who not only have the measure of discipline found in our current workforce but display independent and innovative thinking; and Communicators who are effective team players, able to articulate their ideas confidently. (Ministry ofEducation, 1998)

That experience could take the form of project work or open-ended assignments requiring independent study and an oral project report (Ministry of Education, 1998). Another recommendation was that teachers should reduce highly structured and teacher-centered teaching by 20% to provide more time for learner-centered activities that involve interaction between students and teachers and with other students in cooperative efforts. Project Work has been implemented in schools in Singapore since 1999 and became an entrance requirement to local universities in 2005. Oiven the present scenario in Singapore schools in the era of education reform, our goal was to assess the effects of classroom organization on the basis of cooperative-learning groups in Singapore's cultural and educational environment. Cooperative learning is a general title for a set of classroom teaching methods in which students work in small groups to help one another study academic subject matter (Slavin, 1991). The need to cooperate as members in a small group is the cornerstone of cooperative learning. Researchers have documented the positive effects of cooperative learning; various cooperative-learning methods overlap, but they are not equivalent in terms of theory, procedures, and goals (Sharan, 2002). Several researchers have noted differences between some of the methods (Brody &. Davidson, 1998; Kagan, 1985; Sharan, 1980, 2002; Slavin, 1990, 1991; Tan, 2004). Extensive reviews and meta-analyses of research have demonstrated that cooperative learning leads to higher achievement at various grade levels and in different subject areas than the traditional form of whole-class teaching (Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Johnson, Johnson, &. Maruyama, 1983; Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, & Skon, 1981; Qin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995; Slavin, 1980, 1983,

One of the recommendations of the review team was that all students should experience self-directed learning. 142

Address correspondence to /v^ Geok Chin Tan, National Institute of Education, Singapore. (E-mail: ivy. tan@nie.edu.sg) Copyright 2007 1. G. C. Tan, S. Sharan, and C. K. E. Lee

January/February 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 3)] 1991). Studies also show that cooperative learning exerts positive effects on a wide range of social-affective outcomes, including improved peer and cross-ethnic relations, increased self-esteem, improved attitudes toward school, and subject matter and learning (Johnson et al., 1981; Johnson &. Johnson, 2002; Nastasi & Clements, 1991; Shachar & Sharan, 1994; Sharan, 1980; Sharan & Shachar, 1988; Slavin, 1991, 1995). However, few researchers have used empirical studies to assess directly the effects of cooperative learning on motivation to learn. Enhanced motivation was usually deduced indirectly from students' improved achievement scores (Slavin, 1983, 1991, 1995; Sharan &. Shaulov, 1990). In addition to the dependent variables discussed in the previous paragraph, another topic has caught the attention of some researchers, namely, how students perceive and evaluate cooperative learning. What do students think about these alternative ways of teaching and learning, and what do they have to say about it? The researchers frequently gathered information from students after the conclusion of an experiment or intervention that lasted for 2 or 4 weeks, or sometimes as long as 2 or 3 months. Researchers interviewed students (Ahuja, 1994; Jackson, 1994; Mulryan, 1994), asked them to respond to questionnaires (McManus & Gettinger, 1996; Slesinski, 1998; Whicker, Boi, &. Nunnery, 1997), or asked them to write open-ended comments or self-evaluations about the experiences that they had while participating in cooperativelearning activities (Mueller &. Fleming, 2001). Most of the research on the effectiveness of cooperative learning involved the use of cooperative methods that help students master well-defined skills or information (Slavin, 1995). Researchers need to assess the effectiveness of project-based cooperative-learning methods such as group investigation (Sharan &. Sharan, 1992) and complex instruction (Cohen, 1994), which involve distinct changes in the entire approach to instruction compared with the whole-class method. Much work has yet to be done before researchers understand the conditions necessary for success in project-based cooperative learning (Slavin, 1995). We evaluated the effects of a relatively complex, projectbased form of cooperative learning, namely, group investigation, and its implementation at the secondary school level (Grade 8, Ages 13-14). Our main objective was to determine whether the use of group investigation, compared with whole-class instruction, would result in higher levels of academic achievement and intrinsic motivation to learn for Singapore students. Group investigation includes a large measure of self-directed learning and emphasizes intrinsic motivation, so it was appropriate that we assessed its effects on students' motivation to learn. We also assessed students' perceptions of the new method of learning. Specifically, we posed the following hypotheses: Hyt)othesis I: The group investigation method will have a more positive effect on students' academic

143 achievement than does the traditional whole-class method of instruction. Hypothesis 2: The group investigation method will have a more positive effect on the success of lower achieving students than of higher achieving students as compared with the traditional whole-class method of instruction. Hypothesis 3: The group investigation method will exert a more positive effect on students' intrinsic motivation to learn as compared with the traditional whole-class method of instruction. Hypothesis 4: The group investigation method will exert a more positive effect on the intrinsic motivation of lower achieving students than of higher achieving students. Hypothesis 5: Students will express a more positive perception of group investigation as an instructional strategy than they will of the whole-class method of instruction.

Group Investigation

Group investigation (Sharan &. Sharan, 1992, 1999) requires students to form small interest groups, plan and implement their investigation, synthesize the findings of group members, and present their findings to the class. The teacher uses minimal direct instruction to introduce the general topic of study and to provide a variety of resources to help students conduct their investigations. With group investigation, external rewards are deemphasized and students are responsible for their own learning. Students are also fully involved so that they experience a great deal of intrinsic motivation to pursue their study. Implementation of group investigation proceeds through a sequence of six stages, or phases, that serve as general guidelines for teachers to manage the process (Sharan &. Sharan, 1992).
Stage iThe teachers present a multifaceted prohlem to the

whole class. The problem is often derived from the curriculum. Presentation of the problem that will be investigated can be supported by a display of various resource materials like books, pictures, videos, and newspapers to arouse students' curiosity and stimulate their interest in inquiry. Students then generate questions on the basis of the general problem. The questions are categorized into subtopics that can be investigated by separate groups. The students then sign up to be members of the small groups that will investigate the subtopic in which they are interested.
Stage 2Groups plan their investigations. Students in their

respective research groups cooperatively plan their investigations. From the list of questions generated by the class, they choose those questions that are related to the subtopic and add a few more questions for their investigations. Group members determine the resources that they need, and, depending on the nature of the topic, they may divide the study tasks among themselves. They also may set out a work plan to direct their activities over a period of time.
Stage 3Groups carry out their investigations. Students

implement their plan by locating information from a vari-

144 ety of sources, organizing and recording data, then reporting their findings to their group mates. Together they discuss, analyze, interpret, and integrate their findings in preparation for creating a product that will reflect their efforts.
Stage 4Groups plan their presentations. Groups plan

The Journal of Educationai Research The workshops were conducted by Dr. Hanna Shachar, who has published several research studies on group investigation and has many years of experience with the workshops.
Independent and Dependent Variables

the way that they will present to, or teach, their classmates the information that they have learned from their investigations. The groups decide which of their findings they will share with the class and how best to present them. The emphasis is on students presenting their main ideas and on the conclusion of their investigations. The presentation can assume many forms, such as an exhibit, skit, role play, construction of a model, demonstration experiment, written report, posters, or even a PowerPoint slide production. Innumerable possibilities extend beyond students giving a verbal presentation to the class, which would likely be far less interesting than such a presentation by the teacher.
Stage 5Groups make their presentations. Each group pre-

sents one aspect of the general problem that they have investigated. Each group learns about different facets ofthe same problem from the other groups.
Stage 6Teachers and students evaluate the projects. The

students and teachers evaluate each group's contribution during the presentation. The evaluation takes into consideration (a) the final product of the group, (b) the knowledge that the students acquired during the course of the investigation, (c) how well the investigation process was carried out by the group, and (d) the experiences of the students during the process. Method
Participants

The two independent variables in the study were (a) group investigation and whole-class instruction and (b) students' academic status (high achievers vs. low achievers). The dependent variables were (a) academic achievement, (b) intrinsic motivation to learn, and (c) student perception. We measured student academic achievement by two tests, one on pollution and the other on climate change, given at the end of each curricular unit in the experiment. Each achievement test consisted of three free-response essay questions that were not the regular factual-level, multiple-choice, or short-structured questions used frequently in student assessments. The first question tested students' comprehension of certain concepts, and the next two open-ended questions required students to apply their knowledge and understanding. Both achievement tests had a maximum of 20 marks. We consulted four judges from the National Institute of Education and Queensland Technological University to establish the content validity of the items on the achievement test. The team of judges had 100% agreement on the content validity of the two achievement tests. The first author designed the criteria for scoring and the marking scheme in consultation with a geography educator from the National Institute of Education and the senior geography teacher. The tests were scored by two geography teachers who were not directly involved in the study and were not informed of the nature of the study. The first author and the scorers discussed the scoring criteria, as well as the importance of interrater reliability. Both scorers believed that they would have greater interrater reliability if they marked the tests separately, then met to reach agreement on a common score in cases in which their marks differed. We assessed the pre- and posttests of students' intrinsic motivation to learn with the scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom (Harter, 1980, 1981). The following five subscales, each with six items, are defined by an intrinsic and an extrinsic pole. Challenge: preference for challenge versus preference for easy work; Mastery: independent mastery attempts versus dependence on the teacher; Guriosity: curiosity or interest versus teacher approval; judgment: independent judgment versus reliance on teacher judgment; and Criteria: internal versus external criteria for success or failure. We implemented the first pilot test in a secondary school to ensure that the words in the questionnaire were appro-

We conducted the experiment in 7 eighth-grade (Ages 13-14) geography classes in two schools in Singapore. The schools were comparable in terms of their being co-educational and having the high-achieving stream and lowachieving stream within a school. All the secondary students in Singapore were streamed into either the high-achieving or low-achieving streams on the basis of a Ministry of Education examination at the end of sixth grade (Ages 11-12). The participants included 241 students who were taught in either the traditional whole-class method (n = 103) or the group investigation method (n = 138). Students in all seven classes studied two curricular units on environmental issues in geography (pollution and climate change) over 6 weeks. Three geography teachers from the two schools participated in the experiment. The teachers were accustomed to the regular whole-class method of teaching and had only limited exposure to cooperative learning. The teachers participated in six 3-hr workshops devoted to group investigation 4 months before the implementation of the experiment.

January/February 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 3)] priate for the students in Singapore. As a result, we modified words that were used infrequently in the local context. For example, we removed the word "pretty" (pretty hard and pretty easy) in three of the statements and changed "turn in assignment" to "hand in assignment." hi the second pilot test, we analyzed the reliability of the instrument. Those participants included 113 students from 3 eighth-grade (Ages 13-14) classes from another school. The second pilot test resulted in our removing one item from each subscale that had a low correlation with the other items of the scale. As a result, each subscale had five items. Table 1 shows a summary of the number of items and the Cronbach alpha coefficients for the five subscales of the motivation questionnaire. We performed a correlational analysis to determine the degree to which the items in the intrinsic motivation questionnaire were related. Table 2 shows the Pearson correlations between the subscales of the intrinsic motivation questionnaire. Moderately high correlations indicated a distinct relationship between the scales, demonstrating that they all related to a common domain of information. At the end of the experimental period, the students completed a questionnaire that consisted of an open-ended question asking students to write about their experiences and feelings toward the group investigation method. The written statements reflected the students' own impressions. The teachers did not express their views to the students about group investigation or the whole-class approach to teaching and learning.

145 The written statements yielded large quantities of information. We performed data reduction, the process of selecting, focusing, and simplifying the raw data (Bakeman & Gottman, 1986; Miles & Huberman, 1984, 1994). The first author and another university lecturer independently identified key words and phrases in the written statements. Several key words and phrases occurred frequently; these were clustered together to form a category. The first author and the university lecturer reached 91.3% agreement after extracting the key words, phrases, and statements from a sample of student responses. The first author computed the reliability or degree of agreement by dividing the number of agreements by total number of agreements plus disagreements (Bakeman &. Gottman; Miles & Huberman, 1984, 1994).
Procedure

TABLE 1. Number of Items and Cronbach Alpha Coefficient of tbe Subscales of tbe Intrinsic Motivation Questionnaire Subscale Number of items 5 5 5 5 5 25

Cballenge Mastery Curiosity Judgment Criteria Total intrinsic motivation

.76 .67 .65 .58 .74 .82

We designed six workshops to train 16 humanities teachers from the two schools to develop skills for small-group cooperative learning through group investigation. The teachers acquired the skills to manage and conduct smallgroup learning through experiential education (Kolb &. Fry, 1975; Sharan & Sharan, 1992) and received first-hand experience working and learning in small groups. At the end of each session, the teachers reflected on the process and product of the groups, as well as on the nature of the interaction and behavior within and between groups. After the workshops, the first author worked closely with the 3 secondary geography teachers who were directly involved in the experiment. The teachers helped to make decisions regarding the selection of the geography topic for group investigations. They chose "Humans' Negative Impact on the Environment" because it was an extensive topic that the students in both schools planned to study fot 6 weeks. Furthermore, the topic could be taught as two separate units: pollution and climate change. Two rounds of shorter investigations enabled the students to experience group investigation twice to affect their learning. The teachers held additional discussions on the curriculum to reach an agreement on the content coverage and resources for each unit. The discussions were essential to ensure that the control and experimental classes studied the same curriculum within the same duration of time with comparable resources.

TABLE 2. Pearson Correlations Between Subscales of tbe Intrinsic Motivation Questionnaire

Subscale Challenge Mastery Curiosity Judgment 'p < .05. "p < .01. Mastery .43" Curiosity .50" .32" judgment .18 .26" .22* Criteria .24* .20* .30" .16

146 In the experimental classes, the teachers implemented the six steps of group investigation; each pupil was a memher of a 4- to 5-person group. The students composed the groups according to interests and friendships. The control classes studied the same subject matter as the experimental classes, hut in a traditional whole-class instructional setting. The teachers taught hy using the whole-class method, which was the regular presentation-recitation approach in which all students received similar information and study tasks. The teachers taught the two units with the availahle texthook and workhook. The main interaction in the control classes was mainly teacher talk, and, occasionally, hilateral communication hetween the teacher and students. Classroom ohservations confirmed that the implementation was carried out according to plan. Results Achievement Tahle 3 shows the means and standard deviations of the achievement tests by method and achievement level. For the analysis of achievement data, we performed a two-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with the summative scores of two class tests before the experiment as a covariate. (See A N C O V A results in Table 4.) Comparison of the means with ANCOVA showed a significant main effect for achievement level, F ( l , 237) =

The Journal of Educational Research 23.85, p < .001; the high-achieving groups scored significantly higher than did the low-achieving groups. There was no significant effect for method and no significant Method X Achievement Level interaction effect. That finding is not consistent with Hypotheses 1 and 2; group investigation was not more effective than was the whole-class method. Both instructional methods produced student achievement results at almost the same level, indicating that, despite the fact that group investigation was a completely new and radically different approach to teaching and learning, the method did not yield significantly lower scores than did the well-practiced and well-known whole-class method. Intrinsic Motivation Tahle 5 shows the data that we obtained with intrinsic motivation by method and achievement level and compared by ANCOVA. Table 6 shows A N C O V A results of the posttest intrinsic motivation scores with pretest scores as the covariate. We found no significant main effects for method or achievement level for any of the five subscales or for the total intrinsic motivation score. There were no significant differences in intrinsic motivation scores between students in the two instructional methods and two achievement levels. However, we found a significant Method X Achievement Level interaction effect for the Criteria subscale for intrinsic

TABLE 3. Means and Standard Deviations of Achievement Test Scores , hy Method and Achievement Group investigation Lowachieving (n = 60) Highachieving (n = 78) Total (n= 138) Whole -class instruction Lowachieving (n = 64) Highachieving (n = 39) Total (n = 103)

Test score Total achievement (max 40 marks) M SD

13.82 4.65

19.94 4.54

17.28 5.49

16.20 6.70

21.49 4.83

18.20 6.56

TABLE 4. Analysis of Covariance (2 X 2Methods x Achievement Levels) of Students' Achievement Scores, With the Pretest Class Score as Covariate Source Method Achievement Level Method X Achievement Level Error Total "fx.OOl.

df
1 1 1 236 241

MS 63.01 567.64 3.56 23.80

F 2.65 23.85 0.15

P
.105 .000"* .699

January/February 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 3)]

147

jubscales of Motivation TABLE 5. Means and Standard Deviations of Students' Scores on Five 5 Group investigation Lowachieving (n = 60) Highachieving (n = 78) Total (n=138) Whole-class instruction Lowachieving (n = 64) Highachieving (n = 39) Total

Motivation score Challenge Pretest

(n = 103)

M SD
Posttest

12.48 2.83 12.47 3.18 13.02 2.63 12.83 2.73 13.25 2.10 13.52 2.43 13.10 2.44 12.80 2.75 11.98 3.47 11.80 3.90

13.42 2.81 13.72 3.01 14.05 2.16 14.05 2.35 13.18 2.37 13.23 2.62 13.91 1.89 14.04 2.59 13.45 2.79 13.87 3.10

13.01 2.85 13.17 3.14 13.60 2.42 13.52 2.58 13.21 2.25 13.36 2.54 13.56 2.18 13.50 2.72 12.81 3.18 12.97 3.61

12.95 2.45 12.95 2.07 13.00 2.48 13.38 2.13 13.03 2.16 12.95 1.90 12.94 2.54 13.34 2.50 12.83 3.19 13.06 3.24

13.64 3.02 13.05 3.07 14.00 2.33 13.87 2.13 12.97 2.38 13.31 2.82 14.08 2.25 13.87 2.36 13.26 2.92 13.03 3.05

13.21 2.69 12.99 2.48 13.38 2.46 13.56 2.13 13.01 2.23

M SD
Mastery Pretest

M M

SD

Posttest SD Curiosity Pretest

M SD
Posttest

M SD
Judgment Pretest

13.09 2.28 13.37 2.49 13.54 2.45 12.99 3.08 13.05 3.15 65.96 7.23 66.23 7.41

M SD
Posttest

M SD
Criteria Pretest M

SD
Posttest

M
SD Total Pretest M SD Posttest

63.83 7.48 63.42 9.75

68.01 7.87 68.91 9.10

66.20 7.95 66.52 9.74

64.75 7.42 65.69 6.46

67.95 6.53 67.13 8.78

M
SD

motivation, F(l, 237) = 4.00, p > .05. The high-achieving students in the experimental group experienced an increase in the criteria score, whereas their peers in the control group recorded a decline (see Eigure 1). The reverse occurred for the low-achieving group: students in the experimental group registered a decline in the criteria score, whereas the score for the control group increased. A high score in the Criteria subscale indicated that a student knew when he or she had succeeded or failed without the need for the teacher's feedback, grades, or marks. A low score on the Criteria subscale indicated that the student was dependent on external sources of evaluation of success or failure from the teacher. Figure 1 shows that scores on the Criteria subscale rose slightly for low-achieving students in the traditional classes

from pre- to posttest and declined slightly for low-achieving students in the group investigation classes. Eor low-achieving students in group investigation classes, therefore, criteria for judging their success or failure became more dependent on external information, and they were less able to make that judgement. We found opposite results for high-achieving students, however. Their scores in the group investigation classes rose significantly, whereas the scores for high-achieving students in the traditional classes declined only slightly. Consequently, group investigation helped high-achieving students make more independent judgments of their success or failure over the course of this experiment, whereas students' feeling about their abiUty to make such judgments declined

148

The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 6. Analysis of Covariance (2 x 2Methods X Achievement Levels) of Intrinsic Motivation Scores, With Pretest Intrinsic Motivation Scores as Covariate Soutce Challenge Method Achievement Level Method X Achievement Level Ettot Total Mastety Method Achievement Level Method X Achievement Level Etrot Total Curiosity Method Achievement Level Method X Achievement Level Ertot Total Judgment Method Achievement Level Method X Achievement Level Errot Total Criteria Method Achievement Level Method X Achievement Level Etror Total Total intrinsic motivation Method Achievement Level Method X Achievement Level Ettot Total 'p < .05.

df
1 1 1 236

MS

6.27 0.53 13.42

1.45 0.12 3.11

.229 .725 .079

241
1 1 1 236 241 1 1 1 236 241 1 1 1 236 241 1 1 1 236 2.15 10.55 7.06 0.46 2.28 1.52 .497 .133 .218

1.12

0.24 5.68

0.23 0.05 1.19

.629 .823 .276

1.99 7.98 10.91

0.38 1.51 2.06

.540 .220 .152

0.00 10.41 30.32

0.00 1.38 4.00

.985 .242 .047*

241
1 1 1 236 241 0.24 33.54 157.68 0.01 .75 3.50 .942

.389 .062

ovet time in the ttaditional classes. Hence, an interaction occutted between method and achievement level. To summatize, the tesults do not suppott Hypothesis 3 hecause the group investigation method did not exett a mote positive effect on students' intrinsic motivation to leam as compared with the whole-class method. Also, tesults do not support Hypothesis 4 because group investigation did not exett a mote positive effect on low-achieving students as compared with high-achieving students. An unanticipated finding was that gtoup investigation did exert a mote posi-

tive effect on high-achieving students than on low-achieving students on the Criteria subscale of intrinsic motivation.
Perceptions

The students wrote 955 statements providing information from which we generated the data in Table 7; 68.2% of the statements were positive, and 31.8% were negative. High-achieving students wrote an average 8.1 statements per student (total of 651 statements), of which 69.1% were

January/February 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 3)]

149

Croup Investigation Whole Class 14.5-p 14.0 - 13.5-13.0-o 12.5-12.0.11.5-11.0-10.5-Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Low Achieving High Achieving

FIGURE 1. Two-way interaction on the Criteria subscale between metbod and acbievement level.

positive and 30.9% were negative. Low-achieving students averaged 4.9 statements per student (total of 304 statements), of which 66.5% were positive and 33.5% were negative. Most important, the high-achieving and low-achieving students made twice as many positive statements as negative statements. A detailed description follows of the categoties of students' positive, as well as negative, petceptions of the group investigation method.
Positive Statements About Group Investigation

Fot the students' positive responses to group investigation, four main categories emerged as significant: (a) direct positive evaluations of gtoup investigation; (b) positive perceptions of the extent of achievement regarding increased knowledge, understanding, and learning; (c) positive perceptions of social relationships; and (d) positive perceptions of learning skills and ability to pursue knowledge stemming from group investigation. The first category that emerged consisted of key words and statements that expressed students' direct positive evaluations of group investigation. Students desctibed the method as "fun," "interesting," "good," or "effective." Several students stated that they liked and enjoyed the new method of learning and that it was "much more effective than the traditional way of teaching." That category formed the largest percentage of statements made by highachieving students (21.2% of total number) and lowachieving students (23.4% of total numbet). A second category that surfaced from the students' perceptions concetned the positive effects of gtoup investigation on their academic achievement and learning. High-

achieving students (11.2% of total statements) and lowachieving students (10.9% of total statements) stated that the group investigation method enabled them to "learn better" and to "learn new things." A typical example made by a student was that " . . . we learn more and deeply into the topic as we find the information ourselves, and of course after reading and understanding, we present it to the class." The students reported that group investigation helped them to increase their understanding and to expand their knowledge. Both groups of students indicated that group investigation promoted bettet social relationships and ftiendship ties. They wrote that they learned more about cooperation and the spirit of teamwork. Teamwork and working as a team wete among the terms that the students used frequently when asked about group investigation. One student commented that " . . . Teamwork is important in otder to establish a good relationship between group members and to have satisfying results at the end of the investigation." Students' responses such as "helping each other," working together," "increase friendship ties," and "learned to cooperate" wete all included in the positive aspects of group investigation. The low-achieving students (16.8% of total statements) highlighted the benefits derived from theit experiences with group investigation mote than did the high-achieving students (11.2% of total statements). The students also repeatedly mentioned acquiring learning skills during the investigation. Many students drew attention to their experience of independent learning (developing a sense of independence, investigating the topic), ptocess of ptesentation (reviewing presentation skills, gaining presentation), and information gathering

150

The Journal of Educational Research

TABLE 7. Statements of High- and Low-Achieving Students About the Group Investigation Method High-achieving students Key words/statements Positive statements 1. Direct positive evaluations of group investigation (interesting, fun, good, effective) 2. Achievement (increased knowledge and understanding) 3. Social relations (teamwork, ftiendship. cooperation) 4. Leatning skills (independent leatning. presentation) 5. Others Negative statements 1. Direct negative evaluations of group investigation (not a good method, difficult. causes confusion) 2. Want a teacher or a normal lesson (need teachet to explain, prefer normal lesson) 3. Concern with examinations/syllahus/textbooks (demands of examinations, syllabus coverage) 4. Time consuming (insufficient time, less time fot study) 5. Achievement (cannot leam much, only know one topic) 6. Social telations (arguments, lack of cooperation) 7. Leatning skills (ptesentation problems. research problems) 8. Others Positive statements Negative statements Total n % Low-achieving students n %

138 73 73 143 23

21.2 11.2 11.2 22.0 3.5

71 33 51 33

23.4 10.9 16.8 10.8

14

4.6

23 36 27 20 38 10 43 4 450 201 651

3.5 5.5 4.2 3.1

20 18 8 8 10

6.6 5.9 2.6 2.6 3.3

5.8 1.5 6.7

0.6 69.1 30.9 100

26
12 102 304

8.6
3.9 66.5 33.5 100

(finding information and retrieving it frotn the Internet and other sources). A student comtnented that. From my own group, we have gatheted information on our chosen topic on the Internet as well as other references such as books and encyclopedias. We had even made up an experiment to show how smoke contributes to acid rain but the experiment failed. Ftom this, we learn from our mistakes and we went to seatch for the correct answers. More high-achieving students (22.0% of total statetnents) made positive statetnents about group investigation than did low achievers (10.8% of total statements). Negative Statements About Group Investigation

Both gtoups of students also expressed negative perceptions of the new method of learning. Although only one thitd of statements (304 of 955) made by the students were negative, they provide insights into the students' psychology of classroom learning. High- and low-achieving students did not differ significantly regarding the petcentages of negative statements (high achievets, 30.9%; low achievers, 33.5%).

Some students stated that the group investigation method was not good or that it was less effective or beneficial to theit studies than other methods because they had to "study hatd on our own," or "revise their work at home." Some students stated that they wete confused and that it was difficult or troublesome to study. Some of the lowachieving students commented that they were "uncomfortable to study like this" and did not like the method; lowachieving students expressed a higher percentage of statements in this categoty. For the low-achieving students, 6.6% of their statements reflected negative statements about group investigation, whereas 3.5% of the highachieving students made similar comments. One student teported that "To me, this method is not good for the students. It will not benefit the students as the students would not pay attention when the other classmates present the work. As a result, they will not learn anything." The students also exptessed their preference for "normal" lessons or for their teachers to teach (i.e., instead of students investigating a topic). High- and low-achieving

January/February 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 3)] students (5.5% and 5.9% of respective statements) ptovided insights into the reasons for their preference for the "teacher teaching in class" ot that they preferred the traditional method. The students perceived that they learned more ftom teachets and that teachet notes wete better than their notes. The students also said that they did not ttust theit peers to teach them because they petceived that their peets gave plain and stupid answers. In short, the students stated that gtoup investigation was not hettet than teachet insttuction. According to the students, teachers are more knowledgeable than they are, and teachets should teach fitst, then revise and summarize. They stated that only the teacher's insttuction can taise theit gtades. A category of statements emerged that reflected the students' concern for covering the syllabus, textbook, and examinations. The students expressed their need to manage othet subjects, and their lack of concentration when preparing for upcoming examinations. Some students reported that gtoup investigation was unsuitable for studying for examinations because they had to reread the textbook and had less time to ptepare. The high-achieving students made 27 (4.2%) of the statements in this category, and the lowachieving students made 8 (2.6%) of the statements in the categoty. A typical statement in this category was, 1 think this method could be used as a soutce fot leatning
something extra about the topic but not suitable for a method to be used for studying and then go for the school exams. 1 could say that this method of learning may not work well for those who have the mentality of doing it for the sake of doing or for the marks. In conclusion, I would say that 1 would do it as an extra source of method to get some extra information, but not for studying to sit for the exam.

151 argued with group mates. For example, one student said, "But one thing I don't like about this is when there are some lazy people in the group who do not cooperate with us." Only 1.5% of the statements of the high-achieving students emphasized that type of response. Students ftom high-achieving groups (6.7% of theit total statements) and low-achieving groups (3.9% of theit total statements) identified ptoblems that they encounteted while doing their research and about the presentations they made. Some students had difficulty finding information because they did not know what to find or what to discuss. Other students commented on the students' presentations. They said that some ptesentations were too long or detailed, lacked information, ot were unclear. The students complained that they could not obtain satisfactoty answets from those students who were making the presentations. To summarize, students had positive and negative perceptions of the group investigation method; they repotted twice as many positive statements as negative statements. The high-achieving students and the low-achieving students gave the same proportion of positive and negative statementstwo thirds positive and one thitd negative. Howevet, thete was likely a slight difference between the petceptions ofthe two groups of students. The high-achieving students wete mote concerned than were the lowachieving students with the learning skills involved in group investigation (i.e., the positive or negative sense). The low-achieving students wete mote concerned about social relations than were the high-achieving students. Discussion We used three sets of data in this experiment regarding students' (a) acadetnic achievement, (b) intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation to learn, and (c) perceptions of the group investigation method. Our primary goals in this section were to assess and explain the meaning of the results that we obtained, as well as to relate them to one another. We divided the explanations of the results into three perspectives: (a) students' learning characteristics, (b) extent of students' exposure to group investigation, and (c) school and classtoom organizational norms.
Student Learning Gharacteristics

The students (3.1% of high-achievets' statements and 2.6% of low-achievers' statements) emphasized that the new leatning method was time-consuming because it was difficult finding time for students to get together and they had less time to study on theit own. In terms of negative effects on academic achievement, 38 (5.8%) of the high-achieving students said that they wete not able to learn with the group investigation method. Sevetal high-achieving students stated that they were not ahle to absorb the information presented by other groups of students and that they could understand only the topic that they were presenting. Some low-achieving students (3.3% of their statements) commented that they did not learn much because they did not understand some of the ptesentations made by theit peers. Several students expressed a lack of security when they researched only one suhtopic and had to depend on other groups of students for information on othet topics. Another categoty of statements related to students' social interaction with theit peers while working in cooperative groups. Low-achieving students in particular noted that they had difficulty working in groups. Those students reported 8.6% of their total statements in this category, which included statements implying that they quarrelled or

The data regarding student achievement showed that the group investigation method was not more effective than the whole-class method. However, group investigation did not yield significantly lowet scores than did the familiar whole-class method. Most of the earlier studies on gtoup investigation (Lazarowitz & Katsenty, 1990; Shachar & Sharan, 1994; Sharan & Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1980; Sharan & Shachar, 1988; Sharan & Shaulov, 1990; Sharan et al., 1985) yielded significant differences between the two methods of classroom insttuctions. Although Shetman (1988) reported that the group investigation class and the

152 conttol class obtained significantly higher posttest achievement scotes, he found no significant difference between the two groups in academic achievement. Similarly, the absence of such differences in the present study raises the question of why the anticipated results were not obtained here in contrast with most of the research reported earlier. As expected, students in the high-achieving classes received significantly higher achievement scotes than did those in the low-achieving classes, regardless of whether they were in whole-class or gtoup investigation classes. What did not emerge that would have heen consistent with the hypotheses was an effect fot students' exposure to gtoup investigation in the data gatheted from either low- or highachieving students. The first factot that we examined here was the televant featutes ot chatacteristics of the students, which could have affected their approach to leatning and their academic achievement in group investigation classes. The statements wtitten by the students regarding group investigation ptovide some insights into their learning charactetistics. Students were accustomed to leatning passively ftom teachers, taking notes, and pteparing for tests and examinations. They were not accustomed to investigating a topic, acquiting information hy themselves or from their peers, or learning in groups. Students wanted teachers to present the academic material to them instead of being asked to seatch fot information. They commented that group investigation required more of their time than did ttaditional whole-class instruction. Students were concerned that they had insufficient time to study for theit other class tests and to revise for the forthcoming examinations. Group investigation students were apprehensive about not being as prepared for their examination as they were in the ttaditional classroom. They also said that they had difficulty learning ahout other topics that they did not investigate. We especially noted that concetn because gtoup investigation required the students in different groups (division of labor) to investigate one facet of the topic. The students also encountered difficulty researching topics because previously they did not have to conduct teseatch, but only record the material that teachets presented (ptepackaged knowledge). Data regarding students' motivation tevealed no significant changes during the experiment except on the Critetia subscale of the questionnaite, which assessed the degtee of students' internal versus external critetia for success or failure (locus of conttol in eatliet research). The high-achieving students in gtoup investigation classes incteased their Criteria scores, whereas theit peers in the whole-class groups experienced a decline in their scores. Conversely, the lowachieving students in gtoup investigation classes experienced a decline in scores on the Ctitetia scale, whereas theit peers in the conttol gtoup increased their scores. The high-achieving students in group investigation classes relied more on intetnal ctiteria for success or failure aftet studying with that method than did their peers

The Journal of Educational Research who studied in classes taught with the whole-class method. Gtoup investigation offeted students a significant degtee of control over the method and goals of their study. They planned what they wanted to achieve with their study ptoject and how they intended to implement it. Group investigation involved students in assessing theit work in tetms of the ctiteria that they detetmined, so their responses to the Critetia scale on the motivation questionnaite were consistent with the nature of the study ptocess that they used with group investigation. However, that result occurred only for the high-achieving students. The low-achieving group investigation students tepotted that theit motivation to learn declined, the opposite of the findings ftom the high-achieving students. Group investigation might pose difficulties fot low-achieving students until they achieve a sense of familiarity with that approach to classtoom learning. Those students might also tequire a more structured and teacher-directed fotm of instruction to progress confidently in their studies. The low-achieving students were also less able to make judgments and wete mote dependent on their teachers' evaluation fot assessing their success or failure than wete the high-achieving students.

Exposure to Group Investigation

The data from this study regarding motivation also highlight a factot that may have influenced students' motivation to leatn. The 6-week dutation of the expetiment could have been a plausible teason why only one subscale on motivation registeted a significant difference. Because students' history of exposure to teaching and learning in school was highly uniform and they were accustomed exclusively to the whole-class method, 6 weeks may have been insufficient for group investigation to influence their motivation to learn. Students were exposed to group investigation only in geogtaphy. According to the mandated curriculum in both schools, geogtaphy was taught only in the second semestet fot 15 weeks befote the start of final examinations. Hence, students' experience in group investigation was a mere "injection" of a new and diffetent teaching method into a traditional classtoom environment that temained unchanged in all areas except geography. The time constraint imposed by the schools on this expetiment diluted the potential impact of gtoup investigation on students' motivation to leatn. The fact that students' motivation did not change could also be a teason that contributes to the explanation of why student achievement did not imptove in the gtoup investigation classes. Reseatchets have recognized that the amount of time devoted to the implementation of independent variables in an experiment affects students' cognitive and social-affective functioning (Bossett, 1988; Nastasi & Clements, 1991; Sharan, 2002; Slavin, 1995). However, the optimum dutation is not known for measuring the effects of gtoup investigation ot other methods of classtoom teaching and learn-

January/February 2007 [Vol. 100 (No. 3)] ing on students' cognitive and social-affective outcomes. Experiments with vatious methods of coopetative learning yielded positive tesults in tetms of students' academic achievement after implementation for a few days to 2 or more weeks (Johnson &. Johnson, 1985; Qin, Johnson, & Johnson, 1995; Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1980, 1983, 1995). Slavin (1995) stated that fot cooperative learning to be effective, the dutation of a study must be at least 4 weeks. Therefore, a clear empirical basis existed for planning the present study for a period of 6 weeks. The students in this study needed more time to adjust to the new method of learning cooperatively because they were entrenched in the prevailing norms of teacher-centered teaching and individualistic leatning. Participants also had to adjust to a completely different set of conditions in terms of their psychological involvement in the learning process. They exptessed their preference for direct insttuction by the teachers who would provide them with the facts and notes. The students wete not ptepated for a more encompassing emotional and intellectual involvement in the learning process. Assessment of the value of an instructional method is affected by the social-psychological condition of the students. The lack of positive findings about the effects of group investigation on students' achievement and motivation in this study might be the result of insufficient time that the students had to adjust to this new fotm of classtoom leaming.
School and Glassroom Organizational Norms

153 One major impediment to the effective implementation of gtoup investigation is that out tesults could not change the prevailing norms regarding the schools' expectations of students' academic behavior. Group investigation requires a set of norms and expectations fot which the teachers and students in this study were completely unaccustomed. Many of the students' wtitten evaluations of group investigation reflected their years of exposure to the traditional norms of school behavior. Schools must convey to the students a new set of academic norms that requites students to seek information that the teachets do not provide. Some students in this study were confused by the new method of learning. The students who took geography classes taught with group investigation also took subjects taught with the traditional whole-class, ptesentation-recitation method. The students wete still entrenched in the traditional school and classtoom norms. Those norms could be changed only by a relatively extensive school-change project. Elements of the insttuctional ptocess in schools are connected and affect one anothet. Fot example, the norms of evaluation in classes and schools affect many aspects of classroom teaching and leatning. While the students in the present expetiment were conducting theit investigation of their chosen topics, they were also mindful of the tests and examinations for which they had to ptepare. Those conflicting issues were reflected in the students' written statements at the end of the experiment. By examining a synthesis of achievement and motivation data in this study, as well as student evaluations, we concluded that attempts to improve student achievement and motivation by implementing a new method of insttuction will not likely succeed because limited changes are made to existing norms and behavioral regularities of the class. If the tegularities of classtoom teaching and leatning typical of whole-class instruction remain unchanged and are not adapted to the essential charactetistics of gtoup investigation, little improvement will occut (Sarason, 1990). Despite the inconsistency between group investigation and traditional organization, expectations, and norms in the classroom environment, the students expressed positive attitudes about their experience with group investigation. Their positive evaluations provide evidence that the students enjoyed the learning process, built sttonget team spirits, acquited research skills, and had a deeper understanding of the topic with gtoup investigation. Reseatchets should examine the impact exerted by group investigation and by othet methods of coopetative learning on students and consider the new method of instruction as patt of a planned educational change effort in the school. A primary change that teseatchers must consider is the norms that exert a significant effect on teachet and student attitudes and behaviot toward teaching and learning. If new instructional methods such as group investigation are to be studied systematically, norms of classroom otganization and especially student evaluation must be changed.

A third set of factors involves the social and organizational featutes of the school and the school system that ditectly and indirectly affect student learning in the classroom (Schmuck &. Runkel, 1985; Schmuck &. Schmuck, 2001; Sharan, Shachar, & Levine, 1999). A study of the effects of a new teaching method on students is influenced by sevetal schoolwide factots and ptevailing schoolwide and classroom norms. That is particularly true when the method being assessed is not part of the teachets' traditional instructional tepertoire. Hence, an interpretation of the findings reported hete requires some discussion of the complex issue of school otganization and change (Elmore, 1987; Fullan & Stiegelbauet, 1991; Goodlad, 1984; Sarason, 1990, 1996), even though the focus of this study was the assessment of classroom teaching methods. The behaviot of teachers and students is often affected by organizational and political factors operating in schools. Factots that exett powerful effects on the behaviot of teachers and students include the broad schoolwide and even nationwide norms governing (a) the organization of classrooms, (b) assignment of students to classes, (c) schedules and frequency of examinations, (d) quantity of curricular material, and (e) students' long-standing attitudes and expectations developed through years of exposure to traditional forms of schooling (Sarason, 1983, 1990, 1996; Schmuck & Runkel, 1985).

154
REFERENCES Ahuja, A. (1994). The effects of cooperative kaming instructional strategy on the academic achievement, attitudes toward science class and process skills middle school science students. Unpubiished doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State University, Columbus. Bakeman, R., & Gottman, ]. M. (1986). Observing interaction: An introduction to sequential ar\alysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bossert, S. T. (1988). Cooperative activities in the classroom. Review of Research in Education, 15, 225-250. Brody, C, & Davidson, N. (1998). Introduction. In C. Brody & N. Davidson (Eds.), Professional development for cooperative leaming. Albany: State University of New York Press. Cohen, E. (1994). Designing groupwork: Strategies fm the heterogeneous classroom (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press. Elmore, R. (1987). Reform and the culture of authority in schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 23, 60-78. Fullan, M., & Stiegelbauer, S. (1991). The new meaning of educationol change. New York: Teachers College Press. Coodlad, J. (1984). A place called school. New York: McCraw-HiU. Harter, S. (1980). A scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom. Unpublished manuscript. University of Denver. Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation in the classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology, 17, 300-312. Jackson, B. (1994). Cooperative learning: A case study of a university course in syst;em analysis. Educational and Training Technology International, 31, 166-179. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985). The intemal dynamics of cooperative learning groups. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. HertzLazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Leaming to cooperate, cooperating to leam (pp. 103-124). New York: Plenum. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2002). Learning together and alone: Overview and meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Joumal of Education, 22, 95-105. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R., & Maruyama, C. (1983). Interdependence and interpersonal attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formulation and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research, 53, 5-54. Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47-62. Kagan, S. (1985). Dimensions of cooperative structures. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-lazarowitz, C, Webb, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Leaming to cooperate, cooperating to leam (pp. 67-96). New York: Plenum. Kolb, D., & Fry, R. (1975). Towards an applied theory of experiential learning. In C. Cooper (Ed.), Theories of group processes (pp. 33.-57). London: Wiley. Lazarowitz, R,, & Karsenty, G. (1990). Cooperative learning and students' academic achievement, process skills, learning environment, and selfesteem in tenth-grade biology classrooms. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative leaming: Theory and research (pp. 123-149). New Yotk: Praeger. McManus, S. M., & Gettinger, M. (1996). Teacher and student evaluations of cooperative learning and observed interactive behaviors. The Jourrwl of Educational Research, 90, 13-22. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Ministry of Education. (1998). Curriculum review report. Singapore: Ministry of Education. Mueller, A., & Fleming, T (2001). Cooperative learning: Listening to how children work at school. The Joumal of Educational Research, 94, 259-265. Mulryan, C. M. (1994). Perceptions of intermediate students' cooperative small-group work in mathematics. The Joumal of Educational Research, 87, 280-291.

The Journal of Educational Research

Nastasi, B. K., & Clements, D. H. (1991). Research on cooperative learning: Implications for practice. School Psychology Review, 20( 1), 110-131. Qin, Z., Johnson, D. W, & Johnson, R. T. (1995). Cooperative versus of competitive efforts and problem solving. Review of Educational Research, 65, 129-143. Sarason, S. (1983). Schooling in America: Scapegoat and salvation. New York: Free Press. Sarason, S. (1990). The predictable failure of educational reform. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Sarason, S. (1996). Revisiting "The culture of the school and the problem of change." New York: Teachers' College Press. Schmuck, R., & Runkel, P. (1985). The handbook o/organisation development in schools and colleges (3rd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield. Schmuck, R. A., & Schmuck, P. A. (2001). Group jyrocesses in the classroom (8th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Shachar, H., & Sharan, S. (1994). Talking, relating, achieving: Effects of cooperative learning and whole-class instruction. Cognition and Instruction, i2, 313-353. Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241-271. Sharan, S. (2002). Differentiating methods of cooperative learning in research and practice. Asia Pacific Joumal of Education, 22(1), 106-116. Sharan, S., & Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1980). A group investigation method of cooperative learning in the classroom. In S. Sharan, P. Hare, C. Webb, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz (Eds.), Cooperation in education (pp. 14-46). Provo, UT: Brigham Young University Press. Sharan, S., Kussell, P., Bejarano, Y., Raviv, S., Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., & Sharan, Y. (1985). Cooperative learning effects on ethnic relations and achievement in Israeli junior high-school classrooms. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, C. Webb, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & R. Schmuck (Eds.), Leaming to cooperate, cooperating to leam (pp. 313-344). New York: Plenum Press. Sharan. S., & Shachar, H. (1988). Language and leaming in the cooperative classroom. New York: Springer Verlag. Sharan, S., Shachar, H., & Levine, T. (1999). The innovative school: Organization and instruction. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative leaming through group investigation. New York: Teachers' College Press. Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1999). Group investigation in the cooperative classroom. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Handbook of cooperative leaming methods (2nd ed., pp. 97-114). Westport, CT: Greenwood. Sharan, S., & Shaulov, A. (1990). Cooperative learning, motivation to learn and academic achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative leaming: Theory and research (pp. 173-202). New York: Praeger. Sherman, L. W (1988). A comparative study of cooperative and competitive achievement in two secondary biology classrooms: The group investigation model versus an individually competitive goal structure. Joumal of Research in Science Teaching, 26, 55-64. Slavin, R. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315-342. Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative leaming. New York: Longman. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative leaming: Theory, research, and l^actice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Slavin, R. E. (1991). Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership, 48, 71-82. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative leaming: Theory, research, and {yractice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Slesinski, C. (1998). The role of concepts, plans and enactment when cooperative leaming is implemented for purpose of school reform. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Albany, State University of New York. Tan, C. G. I. (2004). Effects of cooperative leaming with group investigation on secondary students' achievement, motiwtion and perceptions. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. Whicker, K. M., Bol, L. & Nunnery, J. A. (1997). Cooperative learning in the secondary mathematics classroom. The Journal of Educational Research, 91,42-48.