Final Thesis INTERPERSONAL SKILLS OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION STUDENTS OF PSU-URDANETA CAMPUS

Chapter I The Problem Background of the Study One of the problems encountered by teachers is the inability of the students to cooperate in class. Discussions always drag, but interest is nonetheless high. By working in a small group, the students may come to know and understand each other better and consequently be able to interact more effectively. Cooperative learning is a set of instructional models used to help students meet specific learning ad interpersonal goals in structured groups. In effect, it is an approach to instruction that involves students working together to reach a common goal. In the conduct of a lesson, Moore (2003) expounded that cooperative learning requires students to work together in mixed ability groups to accomplish a set of tasks. He maintained that the accountability of individual students for the whole group builds an incentive for students work together productively.in addition, cooperative learning requires student cooperation and interdependence to its tasks, goal and reward structure. In summary, cooperative learning is an approach to instruction, whereby students work together in small groups and are rewarded for their collective accomplishments (Arends, 2004). Most developmental changes are the results of interactions with people in the environment. Dividing the students into small group aims to provide an opportunity for the students to become more actively engaged in the learning and for teachers to monitor the student progress better. For decades cooperative learning has been implemented in classrooms with diverse populations primarily as a means of fostering positive student

interactions. In the United States, cooperative learning was first viewed as an approach to facilitate racial integration. Statement of the Problem The study sought to determine the level of cooperative learning of teacher education students of PSU-Urdaneta campus for the SY 2013-2014. Specially ,it attempted to answer the following questions: 1.

What

the

profile

of

the

teacher

education

student

of

PSU-

UrdanetaCampus ,Urdaneta City in terms of: A.

Age,

B.

Sex, and

C.

Family income?

2.

What is the Cooperative Learning the of Teacher Education students of

PSU- Urdaneta as measured by the Cooperative Learning Qualities Checklist when grouped in terms of A.

Age,

B.

Sex,

C.

Family income?

3.

What is the Cooperative Learning of the Teacher Education of PSU-

Urdaneta as measured by the Cooperative Learning Qualities Checklist when grouped as a whole?

Significance of the Study This study focused on the Cooperation Learning of the Teacher Education students and deemed to benefit several sectors: To the students- Through the result of this study, they could have a better way of understanding the people around them. The result of this study serves as their reference for evaluating their strengths and weaknesses in cooperating with other people. To the Teacher Education Students- Having identified their Cooperative Learning, they could be encouraged to note vital changes and development in their behavior to achieve cooperation and social effectiveness. To the Parents- Through this study, they will realize that Cooperative Learning enhances a person’s ability to succeed in school as well as in their future works; therefore they will encourage helping their children to develop their social skills to be a socially responsive and a helpful citizen. To the Teachers- This study will help them

realize the importance of

Cooperative Learning. Thus they can aid in improving the Cooperative Learning of each student by creating a more advantageous learning environment. To the Administration- This study could benefit them by providing them with resources and materials about Cooperative Learning which serve

as

their

development

basis

program

in

strengthening

that

would

cooperative

directly

address

enhancement of cooperative competency of students.

skills the

To other Researchers- This study will stimulate them to conducr the same study. This will serve as the basis of information for other researchers.

Scope and Delimitation This study was conducted to determine the Cooperative Learning of Tecaher Education Students of Pangasinan State University, Urdaneta Campus from 1st year- 3rd year sharing the 2nd semester of the Academic year 2013-2014.

Definition of Terms Terms

are

conceptually

and

operationally

defined

for

better

understanding of the readers. Cooperative- operationally this term was used to the way how the respondents are willing to cooperate with other people. Learning –in this studythis term used to determine the knowledge or skill gained from learning Cooperative learning- is generally defined as a teaching arrangement in which small, heterogeneous groups of students work together to achieve a common goal.

Chapter II Review of Related Literature This chapter presents a selected literature and studies that are of bearing to the current study. The review of such literature and studies made by the researchers gave rich background and direction in the preparation and conduct of the study. Related Literature Cooperative learning groups have, since the early 90's, been the accepted schema of middle school, at least in theory.

In many ways, the

early work of Kagan, D.W. Johnson, R.T. Johnson, and Slavin, echoes the small group work of the mid-70's ESL movement.

Students in small groups

collaborate to solve a problem, create a product, or perform a task. While some form of homogeneous grouping has been recommended by advocates of gifted and talented education (Allan, 1991), most middle school educators emphasize the downside of such groupings to at-risk students. They condemn tracking as destructive and preach instead the gospel of heterogeneous groupings (Carnegie Task Force on the Education of Young Adolescents, 1989). Thus, "when middle school practitioners focus on the diverse middle school population, advanced/gifted learners and culturally diverse learners typically receive less attention than special education or remedial students"(Moon, Tomlinson and Callahan, 1995). However, within small cooperative learning groups, some have argued that "heterogeneous grouping has positive socioemotional outcomes for gifted

children

and

negative

Archambaultand Hallmark, 1995).

ones

for

non-gifted

children."(Kenny,

Others claim that compared to any

alternative, cooperative learning experiences promote higher achievement, positive

self-esteem,

social

awareness,

and

tolerance

for

individual

differences, especially when the groups are arranged heterogeneously.

Daniel Holt (1993) points out that "the heterogeneity underpinning cooperative learning did not originally include the linguistic and cultural diversity which is now the rule rather than the exception in many schools. Cooperative learning is nevertheless a strategy that values difference and so can help educators transform diversity into a vital resource for promoting students' acquisition of challenging academic subjects." Whether a researcher argues for homogeneous or heterogeneous cooperative learning groups, they all agree that, after an initial settling-in period, "group formation should not be left to chance; instead, careful forethought is given to the question of who comprises each learning group in an attempt to create the optimal social learning environment."(Cuseo, 1992). Related Studies Foreign Studies After more than 20 years of research involving over 80 research studies and a series of extensive reviews of existing research on cooperation and learning (more than 800 dating back to the late 19th century), Roger and David Johnson have no doubts: cooperative learning works to the benefit of students, teachers, schools, and communities. “Human beings learn more, flourish, and connect more when they’re cooperating and less when they’re competing or working in an isolated fashion,” Roger Johnson says. Cooperative learning situations designed correctly have five key components: Positive interdependence (each individual depends on and is accountable to the others—a built-in incentive to help, accept help, and root for others) Individual accountability (each person in the group learns the material) Promotive

interaction

(group

members

information, offer clarifying explanations)

help

one

another,

share

Social skills (leadership, communication) Group processing (assessing how effectively they are working with one another)

Cooperative

learning,

the

Johnsons

discovered,

has

many

positive outcomes. Their research shows that cooperative learning improves students’ efforts to achieve. They work harder, achievement levels go up, material is remembered longer, higher-level reasoning is used more, and it provides not just external motivation but also intrinsic motivation. What interests the Johnsons even more is that cooperative learning methods also improve interpersonal relationships among those working together. Students working cooperatively tend to like each other better, including groups with both able-bodied students and students with disabilities, groups with students of different ethnic backgrounds, and groups with both genders. Students in cooperative learning situations also show increased self-esteem, self-efficacy, and confidence in the future. They tend to have a higher regard for school, for the subject they are studying, and for their teachers. “Each group should leave each individual stronger,” Roger Johnson says. “The ideal in cooperative learning is that they learn in a group and are able to perform it alone.” Ann Birdseye, director of human resources for Charleston County School District, Charleston, S.C., says her department has used cooperative learning training for more than 10 years. “Very simply, it works!” she says. “When teachers use cooperative learning strategies correctly, students learn more, enjoy it more and develop interpersonal and study skills that they will use for a lifetime. When administrators use cooperative leadership strategies, the organization is more supportive, effective, positive and productive.

Local Studies In the Philippine setting, small group techniques with the participation from the learners were also found to work well in a study by Dimas (1987), it was found out that the use of active participation as a technique had certainly affected the behavior of the teacher and the students. On the part of the teachers, they became more aware of what they should be doing to cause the students to learn. They realized that much can be accomplished in one hour if work is systematized and the students are more involved in class work. On the part of the students, they became more attentive to lessons and more actively involved in class activities .they felt more free to consult their teachers when they were doubtful and when they have problem.in a similar study made by Cuchapin (1982) ,she confirmed that small group approach is more effective that the whole class approach. Dominguez (1980), in using peer -mediated instruction found out that there is great advantage between the controlled and experimental groups with the favor on that subjected to peer- mediated instruction. These studies which are the only ones the research came across were not solely on English classes, but they all made use of small group techniques ,and this paper is to further prove the significant effect of small group approach ,particularly cooperative learning techniques. Theoretical Framework Social learning theory stresses the relevance of observing and modeling behaviors’, attitudes, and emotional reactions of individuals. The main focus tends to be on learning by observation and modeling. The theory originated frombehaviorismsbut has now evolved to include many of the concepts that cognitivists also hold and as a result it is sometimes known as social cognitive learning. (Abbott, 2007). Gestalt psychologists criticized behaviorists for being dependent on overt behavior to explain learning. They proposed studying patterns rather than isolated events. Gestalt views of

learning have been incorporated into what have come to be labeled cognitive theory and it can be summarized into two key assumptions. First, that the memory system is an active organized processor of information. Second, that prior knowledge plays an important role in learning. In other words, cognitive theory looks beyond behavior to explain brain-based learning. (Informasi Guru and Siswa, 2009). Social learning theory discusses how both environmental and cognitive factors interact to influence human learning and behavior while focusing on the learning that occurs within a social context. It assumes that people learn from one another and explores concepts such as observational learning, imitation and modeling. (Abbott, 2007). Social Learning theory demonstrates that more often than not, people

try

to

emulate

successful

individuals.

(Bandura,1977).

In

a

Cooperative learning lesson, team formation is crucial to the learning. One of the most recommended team formations is the heterogeneous team formation, grouping the High achievers with medium-high, medium-low and low achievers. This provides an opportunity for the low achievers to learn through 'modeling' the high achievers. (High,1993). Social Learning theory also demonstrates that we often emulate those with whom we can identify. (Bandura, 1977). It is fairly easy to see that some Cooperative learning structures are tailored for Team building, improving pupil relations and forming a team bond helps the pupils feel more comfortable in their groups, comfortable enough to learn through modeling of their team mates.

Conceptual Framework The conceptual framework identifies the profile variable of the Education Students in terms of their age, sex and family income.

Profile of Students Sex

Cooperati ve Learning

Age

of the

Family Income

Teacher Education students

Chapter III METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the manner on how data was conducted. Specially, it tackles the research design, subject of the study, data gathering instrument, data gathering procedure, sources of data and statistical treatment.

Research Design The descriptive survey method of research was utilized in this study. This approach is appropriate wherever the objects of any class vary among themselves and are interested in knowing the extent to which the different conditions obtain among these objects. The word survey signifies the gathering of data present conditions. The survey has to do two things: to prove the value of facts, and to focus attention on the most important thing to be reported (Calmorin, 1994). The survey will be used in the study since the gathering of data which pertains to the present conditions of the education student’s cooperative learning; to prove the value of these facts, focusing attention on the most important things to be reported. The researchers used questionnaire as the measuring instrument in gathering of data. Weighted arithmetic mean was used as the statistical tool to determine the cooperative learning of education students.

Subjects of the Study The subjects were the 150 students chosen randomly from first year to third year of education course both elementary and secondary education of Pangasinan State University, Urdaneta City Campus during the school year 2013-2014. Fifty students (50) were selected from each year. `

Table 1 presents the respondent of the study. Table 1 Sample respondent of the Study Course Year Level

Number of Respondent

First Year Elementary Education

25

Secondary Education

25

Second Year Elementary Education

25

Secondary Education Third Year

25

Elementary Education

25

Secondary Education

25

Total

150

Data Gathering Instrument The main data-gathering instrument was two (2) set survey questionnaire. The first part is intended to gather information of education

student, and the second part is five-point scale likert type survey questionnaire. The questionnaire consisting of items under difficulties encountered in conducting action research that requires the student to rate in term of scale: 5 – means ALWAYS , entirely, etc. ,4 – means USUALLY ,a good deal rather often ,etc. 3 means – SOMETIMES ,an average amount etc. ,2 – means OFTEN ,sometimes ,a little etc. 1 – means NEVER ,not at all, etc.

Data Gathering Procedure The researcher personally administered the survey questionnaire to determine the Cooperative learning of the Teacher Education students. The teacher education students personally answered the demographic profile and the difficulty test.

Data Sources The researcher made used of the questionnaire adopted from as the main data gathering instrument the test is composed 20 questions. Each question as well as its corresponding option was explained thoroughly. All the option given are correct except that they differ on the degree on how the question were answered.

Statistical treatment of data The data gathered in the study were subjected to statistically descriptive analysis.

To answer the problem number one (1) this is all about the personal demographic variables of the respondent ,basic descriptive analysis was used frequency and percentage .the formula utilized is as follow: P = f /N X 100% Where; P = percentage f = frequency N = total number of respondent 100% = constant To determine the level of cooperative learning of the respondents, the weighted average point was used. the formula utilized is as follows;

WAP=f5 (5) +f4 (4) +f3 (3) +f2 (2) + f1 (1) N

Where: f5 = number of response who answered “ALWAYS, entirely, etc.” f4 =number of response who answered” USUALLY, a good deal, rather often etc.” f3 = number of response who answered “SOMETIMES, about as often as not, an average amount, etc.’’ f2= number of responses who answered “OFTEN, sometimes, a little, etc.” f1= number of responses who answered “NEVER, not at all, etc.”

The mean used describing the cooperative learning levels were determined using the scale below:

4.2 – 5.0 3.4 – 4.19 2.6 – 3.39 1.8 – 2.59 1 .0 – 1.79

Very high High Average Low Very low

CHAPTER IV Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data This chapter includes the salient part of the study, which are the presentation, analysis and interpretation of data. It is in this part where the data were sorted out, tabulated, subjected to statistical treatment of data and eventually given meaning, interpretation and implication. Profile of Teacher Education Students The subjects of the study were asked to indicate their sex, age and family income. The data were taken mainly from the responses of one hundred fifty (150) students and were summarized and presented in tables below. Table 1 shows the demographic profile of Teacher Education students with respect to their sex. Table 1 Profile of Teacher Education Students With Regards to Sex Sex

Frequency

Percentage

Male

33

22%

Female

117

78%

Total

150

100%

Table 1 show that the female dominated the sample population with 78% or 117 respondents while the male group constitutes only 22% or 33 respondents. The data implies that more females have passion when it comes to field of teaching, thus education course has been assumed by majority as a course intended for females. It was affirmed by West (2011) that woman can inspire creatively and innovative thinking and these traits create an education system that is transformational ad effective at new teaching methods. That’s why there is more number of female enrollees for Teacher Education Department that male.

Table 2 below shows the frequency counts and the percentages of the profile of respondents with respect to their age. Table 2 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Age Age

Frequency

Percentage

16

22

14.67%

17

41

27.33%

18

33

32%

19

30

20%

20 above

24

16%

150

100%

Total

The table shows that most of the respondents are 17 years old representing 41 or 27.33%. And other, 33 or 22% are 18 years old, 30 or 20 % are 19 years old, 24 or 16% are 20 years old and above and 22 or 14.67% are 16 years old. This implies most of the Teacher Education students are of typical age. And age plays a significant role in school performance as younger student tends to be perform better that their counterparts (Nwatah,2011).

Table 3 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the respondents with respect to their family income. Table 3 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Respondents in terms of Family Income Family Income

Frequency

Percentage

1,000-5,000 below

81

54%

6,000 above Total

69

46% 10%

150

It could be gleaned that among 150 respondents, 81 or 54% were respondents belong to families who have family income of 1,000-5,000 or low family income, 69 or 46% were those who belong to families with 6,000 above family income or high family income.

Majority of the Filipinos families were concluded under poor families’ bracket. As it has been in the survey (2009) Philippines was consider as a poor country as it is being manifested in its economy.

Table 4 shows the cooperative learning level of the Teacher Education Students in terms of sex.