# Investigating the Effectiveness of Group Work in Mathematics

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Literature Review

## 3. Methodology

#### 3.1. Group Work Setup

- Week 1: Integration by Substitution;
- Week 2: Integration by Parts;
- Week 3: Integration using Partial Fraction decomposition;
- Week 4: Applications of Integration in the Civil Engineering field.

#### 3.2. Data Collection

## 4. Results and Discussion

#### 4.1. Qualitative Analysis: Discussion of the Findings from the Questionnaire Survey

#### 4.2. Quantitative Analysis: Findings from the Data Retrieved from the End-of-Year Examinations

Statistical Measure | Output |

Experimental Class Average Performance Ratio Mean: | 1.807 |

Control Class Average Performance Ratio Mean: | 0.863 |

Experimental Class Standard Deviation: | 4.431 |

Control Class Standard Deviation: | 0.281 |

Experimental Class Size: | 23 |

Control Class Size: | 16 |

Pooled Standard Deviation: | 3.140 |

d-index (Effect Size): | 0.301 |

Variance of d-index: | 0.113 |

Margin of Error: | 0.659 |

Lower Confidence Limit: | −0.358 |

Upper Confidence Limit: | 0.960 |

## 5. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Conflicts of Interest

## Appendix A

#### Student Questionnaire

- (1)
- How are you finding mathematics so far?
- (2)
- How are you finding working in groups so far in this subject?
- (3)
- Does working in groups affect the way you learn mathematics?

#### Views on the Subject of Mathematics

Disagree | Moderate | Agree | |

(4) I learn from my friends. | 1 | 2 | 3 |

(5) I learn from working as a group. | 1 | 2 | 3 |

(6) I think that group work is a good idea. | 1 | 2 | 3 |

(7) I enjoy taking part in group work. | 1 | 2 | 3 |

(8) I think that all members of the group are given an equal opportunity to contribute. | 1 | 2 | 3 |

(9) I think that I will learn more about the subject matter working in a group then I would if I worked by myself. | 1 | 2 | 3 |

(10) I think group work allows some students to be free riders, do little work, whilst on the back of stronger students. | 1 | 2 | 3 |

#### Teaching mathematics is more effective when it…

- (a)
- builds on the knowledge learners already have
- (b)
- exposes and discusses common misconceptions
- (c)
- uses higher-order questions
- (d)
- uses cooperative small group work
- (e)
- encourages reasoning rather than ‘answer getting’
- (f)
- uses rich, collaborative tasks
- (g)
- creates connections between topics
- (h)
- uses technology in appropriate ways.

## References

- Tarmizi, R.A.; Bayata, S. Collaborative problem-based learning in mathematics: A cognitive load perspective. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.
**2012**, 32, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ali, R.; Hukamdad; Akhter, A.; Khan, A. Effect of using problem solving method in teaching mathematics on the achievement of mathematics students. Asian Soc. Sci.
**2010**, 6, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - The Education Alliance. Closing the Achievement Gap: Best Practices in Teaching Mathematics. The Education Alliance, 2006. Available online: www.educationalliance.org (accessed on 29 May 2015).
- National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Reston, VA, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
- National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Intervention: A Position of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics; National Council of Teachers of Mathematics: Reston, VA, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Davidson, N. Small group cooperative learning in mathematics: A selective view of the research. In Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn; Slavin, R., Ed.; Plenum Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985; pp. 211–230. [Google Scholar]
- Wood, T.; Cobb, P.; Yackel, E. Change in Teaching Mathematics: A Case Study. Am. Educ. Res. J.
**1991**, 28, 587–616. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Amit, M.; Fried, M.N. Research, reform, and times of change. In Handbook of International Research in Mathematics Education; English, L.D., Ed.; Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ, USA, 2002; pp. 355–381. [Google Scholar]
- Nardi, E.; Stewart, S. Is Mathematics T.I.R.E.D? A Profile of Quiet Disaffection in the Secondary Mathematics Classroom. Br. Educ. Res. J.
**2003**, 29, 345–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
- Bruner, J. Child’s Talk: Learning to Use Language; Norton: New York, NY, USA, 1983. [Google Scholar]
- Bruner, J. Actual Minds, Possible Worlds; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Piaget, J. The Construction of Reality in the Child; Routledge: London, UK, 2013; Volume 82. [Google Scholar]
- Kocak, Z.F.; Bozan, R.; Isik, O. The importance or group work in mathematics. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci.
**2009**, 1, 2363–2365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kilpatrick, J. A history of research in mathematics education. In Handbook of Research on Mathematics Teaching and Learning; Grouws, D.A., Ed.; Macmillan: New York, NY, USA, 1992; pp. 3–38. [Google Scholar]
- Webb, N.M. Task-related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. J. Res. Math. Educ.
**1991**, 22, 366–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Webb, N.M.; Troper, J.D.; Fall, R. Constructive activity and learning in collaborative small groups. J. Educ. Psychol.
**1995**, 87, 406–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Slavin, R.E. Student team learning in mathematics. In Cooperative Learning in Math: A Handbook for Teachers; Davidson, N., Ed.; Addison-Wesley: Reading, MA, USA, 1990; pp. 69–102. [Google Scholar]
- Yackel, E.; Cobb, P.; Wood, T. Small-group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second-grade mathematics. J. Res. Math. Educ.
**1991**, 22, 390–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T. Social skills for successful group work. Educ. Leadersh.
**1990**, 47, 29–33. [Google Scholar] - Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T.; Smith, K.A. Cooperative learning: Improving University Instruction by Basing Practice on Validated Theory. J. Excell. Coll. Teach.
**2014**, 25, 85–118. [Google Scholar] - Johnson, D.W.; Johnson, R.T.; Smith, K.A. Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity; ASHE-ERIC Report on Higher Education; The George Washington University: Washington, DC, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Damon, W.; Phelps, E. Critical Distinctions among Three Approaches to Peer Education. Int. J. Educ. Res.
**1989**, 13, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gamson, Z.F. Collaborative Learning comes of age. Change
**1994**, 65, 44–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Smith, K.A. Cooperative learning: Making “group work” work. In Active Learning: Lessons from Practice and Emerging Issues. New Directions for Teaching and Learning; Bonwell, C., Sutherlund, T., Eds.; Jossey-Bass: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1996; Volume 67, pp. 71–82. [Google Scholar]
- Dillenbourg, P. Introduction: What do you mean by collaborative learning? In Collaborative Learning—Cognitive and Computational Approaches; Dillenbourg, P., Ed.; Pergamon: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1999; pp. 1–19. [Google Scholar]
- Edwards, J.; Jones, K. Students’ Views of Learning Mathematics in Collaborative Small Groups. In Proceedings of the 23rd Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education, Haifa, Israel, 25–30 July 1999; Zaslavsky, O., Ed.; 1999; Volume 2, pp. 281–288. [Google Scholar]
- Curtis, D.D. Exploring Collaborative Online Learning. J. Asynchron. Learn. Netw.
**2001**, 5, 21–34. [Google Scholar] - Kanev, K.; Kimura, S.; Orr, T. A framework for Collaborative Learning in Dynamic Group Environments. Int. J. Distance Educ. Technol.
**2009**, 7, 58–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Berg, K.F. Scripted cooperation in high school mathematics: Peer interaction ad achievement. In Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA, USA, 4–8 April 1994.
- Scardamalia, M.; Bereiter, C. Higher levels of agency for children in knowledge building: A challenge for the design of new knowledge media. J. Learn. Sci.
**1991**, 1, 37–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hron, A.; Friedrich, H.F. A review of Web based collaborative learning: Factors beyond Technology. J. Comput. Assist. Learn.
**2003**, 19, 70–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - D’Souza, S.; Wood, L. Tertiary students’ views about group work in mathematics. In Proceedings of the Educational Research, Risks and Dilemmas—New Zealand Association for Research in Education (NZARE) and Australian Association for Research in Education (AARE) Joint Conference, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand, 29 November–3 December 2003; Available online: http://www.aare.edu.au/03pap/dso03154.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2016).
- Bernero, J. Motivating Students in Math Using Cooperative Learning; ERIC Document reproduction Service No. ED 446 999; ERIC: Washington, DC, USA, 2000.
- Kerr, N.; Bruun, S. The Dispensability of Member Effort and Group Motivation Losses: Free-Rider Effects. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
**1983**, 44, 78–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Stefani, L.A.J. Peer, self and tutor assessment: Relative reliabilities. Stud. High. Educ.
**1994**, 19, 69–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Falchikov, N. Peer feedback marking: Developing peer assessment. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int.
**1995**, 32, 175–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Fry, H.; Ketteridge, S.; Marshall, S. A Handbook for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 3rd ed.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Cohen, J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Science; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1969. [Google Scholar]
- Hedges, L.; Olkin, I. Statistical Methods for Meta-Analysis; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1985. [Google Scholar]

**Figure 1.**Student responses to Q1–3 of the Questionnaire (see Appendix A).

**Figure 2.**Diagram showing the number of students responding to the different options for effectiveness of Question 4 in the questionnaire.

**Figure 3.**Bar chart showing the number of students responding to the Likert scale questions in the questionnaire.

**Figure 4.**Experimental and Control class performance ratios of Integration questions compared to the rest of the examinable questions against the respective number of students.

**Figure 5.**Percentage of students performing better in Integration questions vs. the rest of the exam questions for both the Experimental and Control class.

**Figure 6.**The average result (%) achieved by students in integration questions with respect to the different range of overall performance in the exam for both the Experimental and Control class.

© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Sofroniou, A.; Poutos, K.
Investigating the Effectiveness of Group Work in Mathematics. *Educ. Sci.* **2016**, *6*, 30.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6030030

**AMA Style**

Sofroniou A, Poutos K.
Investigating the Effectiveness of Group Work in Mathematics. *Education Sciences*. 2016; 6(3):30.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6030030

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Sofroniou, Anastasia, and Konstantinos Poutos.
2016. "Investigating the Effectiveness of Group Work in Mathematics" *Education Sciences* 6, no. 3: 30.
https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci6030030