AtD Cooperative Learning Initiative
Student and Faculty Survey Results
Cooperative Learning Fall 2009
In the Fall of 2009 some faculty members
taught one or more courses using
cooperative learning.
A survey of students was conducted in the
fall of 2009.
A survey of faculty was conducted in the
spring of 2010.
Cooperative Learning
Student Survey
82 students responded to the survey
representing about 22% of the total
number of students
Survey instrument used a portion of the
questions developed by the Johnson
brothers.
Cooperative Learning
Student Survey
21 questions
Scale





5 Completely true
4 True much of the time
3 Sometimes true and Sometimes False
2 False much of the time
1 Completely False
Results are divided into three components



Top nine responses
Bottom nine responses
Three items had low ratings but were positive
Cooperative Learning
Student Survey
5 Completely true, 4 True much of the time, 3 Sometimes true and sometimes false, 2 False much of the time, 1 Completely false
Cooperative Learning
Student Survey
5 Completely true, 4 True much of the time, 3 Sometimes true and sometimes false, 2 False much of the time, 1 Completely false
Cooperative Learning
Student Survey
Three questions require low ratings to be
positive



I would rather work on school work alone
2.83
I have a lot of questions that do not get
answered in class – 2.06
Sometimes I think the scoring system in this
class is not fair – 1.96
5 Completely true, 4 True much of the time, 3 Sometimes true and sometimes false, 2 False much of the time, 1 Completely false
Cooperative Learning
Faculty Survey
19 surveys were returned
Some instructors completed more than
one survey because they taught different
courses
Survey instrument used a portion of the
questions developed by the Johnson
brothers.
Cooperative Learning
Faculty Survey
There were 47 questions divided into 15
sections.
There was a sliding rating scale of 1 to 5



5 Almost always
3 Sometimes
1 Almost never
Results were mixed with some of the
responses very positive, some less than
positive and some needing further
attention
Cooperative Learning
Faculty Survey
General results
94.8% were very satisfied or satisfied with their
cooperative learning experience.
55% of the instructors spent 52-75% of their
class time on cooperative learning groups.
The majority of the respondents used two to
three students per group.
Students were assigned randomly to groups with
some faculty using the Lori Farr system.
Faculty generally provided all students with
materials.
Cooperative Learning
Faculty Survey
Top Ratings
Students were told about how their work would be evaluated. 4.84
Students involved everyone in the discussion. 4.79
Students evaluated individually and as a group based on criteria. 4.47
Faculty consulted with students during the group discussions. 4.24
Students evaluated individually based on a set of criteria. 3.63
Each group member was required to meet their goal. 3.56
Students argued their point and changed their minds only on the basis
of fact. 3.56
Students shared information and agreed on one answer quickly. 3.56
Bonus points were used when everyone succeeded in the group. 3.53
Students received feedback based on the teacher’s observations. 3.41
Tasks were assigned to each group. 3.41
5 Almost always, 3 Sometimes, 1 Almost never
Cooperative Learning
Faculty Survey
Two Areas in Which the Ratings Were Relatively Low
How did you promote the mastery of interpersonal skills?


The social skill was defined and practiced. Groups were observed and feedback
given to them. 2.00
The social skill was defined, practiced and monitored. 2.56
How was group processing conducted in your classroom?



My students discussed how well they worked with each other. 3.16
I had several structured ways for students to process in groups. 2.65
I structured the process as part of the lesson and had students turn in processing
assignments with their other work. 2.63
5 Almost always, 3 Sometimes, 1 Almost never
Cooperative Learning
Faculty Survey
Four Areas in Which the Ratings Were Expected to be Low
As an instructor, I assigned students of the same ability to a group. 1.88
As an instructor, I did not interfere with group work and worked quietly
at my desk. 1.31
Norm-referenced evaluation system where individual students’
performance was compared to the performance of other students. 1.13
Students competed within the group to do the most work. 1.06
5 Almost always, 3 Sometimes, 1 Almost never
Cooperative Learning
Summary
Students were very positive about their cooperative learning
experience, particularly with the opportunity to succeed if they did
their best.
Students may need a bit more prodding on understanding the
importance of everyone in their group being familiar with the
information.
Faculty clearly wanted students to succeed in the group
environment and identified ways to accomplish this success.
Student development of social skills and group processing may
need more attention by the faculty in the future.