Survey

Research Topic: Cooperative Learning and Student Achievement Conclusion validity exists when the independent variable (cooperative learning: the cause) is related to or correlated with the dependent variable (student achievement: the effect).

Internal validity is about whether causality exists to enable the claim that cooperative learning (the independent variable) causes or affects or influences student achievement (the dependent variable). Content validity focuses on the extent to which survey Items/questions for cooperative learning, student achievement, and the chosen control variables represent or cover the content areas (or the domains) of each variable. Two approaches to ensuring content validity can be taken. Expert judgement in existing studies can be t he basis of claiming content validity. Another approach to confirming content validity involves asking a group of experts on the variables to judge if the different aspects of each variable are all the content areas of the variable. Construct validity is the extent to which our survey statements actually measure our independent variable (cooperative learning) and our dependent variable (student achievement).

External validity has to do with the extent to which we can generalize our findings about the relati onship between cooperative learning and student achievement among Saudi students at Clark Atlanta University to Saudi and non -Saudi students within and without Clark Atlanta University. In ensuring conclusion validity , the proposed study will use SPSS to c alculate the correlation coefficient for the independent variable (cooperative learning) and the dependent variable (student achievement). If the correlation coefficient is less or more than zero (0), conclusion validity will be claimed to exist in the pro posed study. Regression and Chi-Square models will be performed in the proposed study to determine internal validity . The proposed study will be considered to have met internal validity if Regression and Chi -Square models show that the relationship between cooperative learning and student achievement is statistically significant at the risk level of 5%. The proposed study will also assess both conclusion validity and internal validity with framework analysis. Framework analysis is an approach to qualitative data analysis where existing studies serve as sources of axial codes, such as the content areas of cooperative learning and student achievement serving as the measures/indicators of the two variables in this proposal. If framework analysis proves causalit y between cooperative learning and student achievement, the proposed study will be considered to have simultaneously met both conclusion validity and internal validity Even though the proposed study will use Likert scale agreement level statements to meas ure cooperative learning, the studies reviewed in this proposal agree that cooperative learning has four content areas: (i) students working together to complete in-class and out -class a ssignments , (ii) students helping one another learn course material in small groups , (iii) students sharing ideas with one another in small groups, and (iv) students assessing their team work skills. Since the four content areas are the measures of cooperatives learning in the proposed study, content validity can be claimed to have be met for cooperative learning. However, content validity cannot be claimed for student achievement in that existing studies show that student achievement has three content areas: test scores, lesson absorption, and social skill development. But social skill development will not be used as a measure in the proposed study in that it is difficult to determine all the relevant social skills, making the lack of content validity a threat to the proposed study with respective to student a chievement. In addition, a group of experts on cooperative learning and student achievement will be assembled and asked to judge if the different aspects of variable in this proposal are all the content areas of the variable. If the experts believe that test scores and lesson absorption are enough as the content areas of student achievement, for example, the second approach will have helped ensured Research Topic: Cooperative Learning and Student Achievement content validity for student achievement, even though the proposed study will not use social skill development as a content area of student achievement. In determining construct validity , a pilot study will be conducted on 10 non -Saudi students at Clark Atlanta University to assess if the measures of cooperative learning and student achievement in Table 1 are their respective actual measures. The 9 -point Likert scale in Table 1 suggests a score of 1 as the lowest level for both student achievement and cooperative learning and a score of 9 as the highest level for both student achievem ent and cooperative learning. For a statement in Table 1 to be an actual measure of cooperative learning, for example, the response pattern associated with the statement must follow the response progression/regression on the 9- point Likert scale (1 to 9). The same must hold for the statements about student achievement, implying that respondent score on the cooperative learning 9 -point Likert scale is positively related to respondent score on the student achievement 9 -point Likert scale. As can be been seen from Table 1 for both student achievement and cooperative learning, the percentage of the respondents that selected a cell after the cell for “Strongly Disagree” for each statement on the 9 -point scale is greater than the percentage of respondents that sel ected every other preceding cell. If this pattern of response progression/regression characterizes the statements in Table 1 for both cooperative learning and student achievement in the proposed pilot study, it can be concluded that construct validity is satisfied given that the respective statements for the two variables can be claimed to be their respective actual measures. If one statement for cooperative learning or student achievement or for both variables diverges from the progression pattern of the s cale and every other statement, the inconsistent statement(s) will not allow for construct validity . A negative statement will also be included in the pilot study for each 9-Likert scale statement, indicating that an agreement response to a statement means a disagreement response to the negation of the statement. As shown in Table 2, a Likert scale statement that gets an agreement response and whose negation gets a disagreement response will be logically considered to be an actual measure of the variable it represents. The inconsistent statement(s) may be excluded from the survey to claim construct validity. But if we do not want to sacrifice content validity for construct validity , we may revise and retest the inconsistent statement(s) in another pilot stud y of the same respondents and thereby determine instrument reliability. If the proposed study finds that cooperative learning causes student achievement, limited external validity can be claimed in the context of most existing studies that have establishe d that cooperative learning causes student achievement among students of different nationalities.

On the other hand, if the proposed study finds that cooperative learning does not cause student achievement among Saudi students at Clark Atlanta University, the proposed study will be treated as an exceptional case that, according to Babbie (2013), does not disapprove the overall causal pattern in most existing studies (page 95) that cooperative learning causes student achievement . Comment [WU1]: Discussed conclusion validity, internal validity, content validity, construct validity, and eternal validity Research Topic: Cooperative Learning and Student Achievement Table 1 Possible Pilot Survey Average Results with the score of each response option in () and with % of respondents in the each cell Please circle the most appropriate number of each statement that corresponds most closely to your desired response Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Moderately Disagree (3) Mildly Disagree (4) Undecided (5) Mildly Agree (6) Moderately Agree (7) Agree (8) Strongly Agree (9) Student Achievement (Dependent Variable) My GPA has improved in the last two years as a result of working with other students to complete assignments 3% 4% 5% 6% 8% 12% 16% 21% 30% My test scores have improved in the last two years as a result of working with other students to complete assignments 2% 4% 6% 8% 11% 13% 15% 17% 24% Learning in groups with other students has improved my performance in research papers and short essay exams 2% 6% 7% 9% 10% 12% 17% 18% 19% In the last two years, my learning of course material has improved with working with other students 3% 4% 5% 6% 8% 12% 16% 21% 30% In the last two years, I have absorbed course material more easily while learning in small groups with other students 2% 6% 7% 9% 10% 12% 17% 18% 19% Cooperative Learning (Independent Variable) I have worked together with other students to complete in -class and out -class assignments in the last two years 2% 6% 7% 9% 10% 12% 17% 18% 19% In the last two years, I have worked in groups where we helped each other learn course material 3% 4% 5% 6% 10% 12% 18% 21% 26% I have shared ideas with students with whom I have worked together in the last two years 3% 4% 5% 6% 8% 12% 16% 21% 30% I have assessed team work skills with students I have worked with in the last two years 3% 4% 5% 6% 9% 13% 16% 20% 29% Strongly disagree (1) means the lowest level of cooperative learning and the lowest level of cooperative learning Strongly agree (1) means the highest level of cooperative learning and the highest level of cooperative learning Research Topic: Cooperative Learning and Student Achievement Table 2 Possible Pilot Survey Average Results Please circle the most appropriate number of each statement that corresponds most closely to your desired response Strongly Disagree (1) Disagree (2) Moderately Disagree (3) Mildly Disagree (4) Undecided (5) Mildly Agree (6) Moderately Agree (7) Agree (8) Strongly Agree (9) Student Achievement (Dependent Variable) My GPA has improved in the last two years as a result of working with other students to complete assignments 9 My test scores have improved in the last two years as a result of working with other students to complete assignments 8 Learning in groups with other students has improved my performance in research papers and short essay exams 7 In the last two years, my learning of course material has improved with working with other students 8 In the last two years, I have absorbed course material more easily while learning in small groups with other students 8 My GPA has not improved in the last two years as a result of working with other students to complete assignments 2 My test scores have not improved in the last two years as a result of working with other students to complete assignments 1 Learning in groups with other students has not improved my performance in research papers and short essay exams 1 In the last two years, my learning of course material has not improved with working with other students 2 In the last two years, I have not absorbed course material more easily while learning in small groups with other students 2 Cooperative Learning (Independent Variable) I have worked together with other students to complete in -class and out -class assignments in the last two years 8 In the last two years, I have worked in groups where we helped each other learn course material 7 I have shared ideas with students with whom I have worked together in the last two years 8 I have assessed team work skills with students I have worked with in the last two years 8 I have not worked together with other students to complete in -class 2 Research Topic: Cooperative Learning and Student Achievement and out -class assignments in the last two years In the last two years, I have not worked in groups where we helped each other learn course material 2 I have not shared ideas with students with whom I have worked together in the last two years 2 I have not assessed team work skills with students I have worked with in the last two years 2 Strongly disagree (1) means the lowest level of cooperative learning and the lowest level of cooperative learning Strongly agree (1) means the highest level of cooperative learning and the highest level of cooperative learning