The effect of cooperative and competitive games with learning disabled adolescents

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The effect of cooperative and competitive games with learning disabled adolescents on arithmetic performance and on-task behavior
Physical Description:
ix, 136 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Smalley, Shelia Yvette, 1952-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Learning disabilities   ( lcsh )
Arithmetic -- Study and teaching   ( lcsh )
Educational games   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1982.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 129-135).
Statement of Responsibility:
by Shelia Yvette Smalley.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 000352646
notis - ABZ0622
oclc - 09806898
System ID:
AA00002186:00001

Full Text













EFFECT


GAMES


WITH


ARITHMETIC


COOPERATIVE


LEARNING


DISABLED


PERFORMANCE


SHELIA


COMPETITIVE


ADOLESCENTS


ON-TASK BEHAVIOR


YVETTE


SMALLEY


A DISSERTATION


PRESENTED


UNIVERSITY


FULFILLMENT


GRADUATE


FLORIDA


COUNCIL


PARTIAL


REQUIREMENTS


DOCTOR


UNIVERSITY


DEGREE


PHILOSOPHY


FLORIDA


1982




























Juanita


Smalley













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


cla


author


woif!7


take


opportunity


to acknowledge


some


many


people


have


contri


buted


completion


dissertation


doctoral


comrnmittee


chairman


Mercer


been


great


support


to me.


dom,


night


, and


scholarly


suggest


tions


have


enrl


profess


ional


deve


lopment


will


cheri


forever.


committee


member


Algozz


dear friend


Alicia


hmitt


have


been


tolerant


patient


as my


research


consultants.


They


helped


me to


smile


when


light


dim.


apartment


chairperson


committee


member


Catherine


Morsink


opened


many


door


, enabling


me to


experience


many


educational


opportunities.


warmt h


belief


me i


greatly


appreciated


committee


members


James


Long


treth


Myron


Cunningham each


have


contributed


much


to the


evolution


ssertation


beginning


teacher


year


new me


when


dear


friend


Leila


Cantara


frequently


advi


me throughout


career


Univer


Florida


typed


sertation


extend


love


thanks


friend


forever








father,


inspiration


William


throughout


Smalley,


life.


been


could


source


have


love


accompli


goal


without t


him.


Most of


all,


wish


to dedicate


dissertation


wo~nde


mother,


Ju~an


, patience


u~nder


guibDPnCc


h ve


been


with


me f


one.


am and


ever


hope


part


tak~


-~ t`l t















TABLE


CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


viii


ABSTRACT


CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . .

Purpose *. . .

Problem *. . .

Variables *


tion


S


Delimitation

Limitations


significance


Definition

Summary


* S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

* S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S

* S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S


of Terms


CHAPTER


REVIEW


LITERATURE


. 8


instructional


Games


Classroom


Advantage


advantage


Games


S S S S S 5


Arithmetic


Game


ssroom


S S S S S 51


Summar
Cla


Goal


Related


Literature


on Use


Game


ssroom


Structures


Cooperative


Goal


Structures


S S S S S S S S S








Summary


CHAPTER


Related


Literature


METHODS


S S S S S C S S S S S S 538


PROCEDURES


0 S S S S S S 5 9 93


Sample

Instrument


S 9 S S S S S S S S S S 9 9 5 5 5 5 S S

S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 5 0 5 5 5 5 5 5


Procedures


uroupi


i ~.n~.ent


Intervention


Experimental


Groups


SO S S S S S S 54


Control


Group


S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 45


Observation


Task


Behavior


S S S S S S S S S 546


Ari thmeti c


Posttest


S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 947


Design


Data


Analysis


SS S S S S


CHAPTER


Arithmetic


Task


RESULTS

Performance


Behavior


S S S C S C S S S S S S S S S S S S S

S S C S S S S S C S S S S S S S S S


S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 954


Arithmeti c


Performance


Task


Behavior


S S S S S S 561


Specific


Error


Patterns


Analysis


S S S S S S S S S S S 564


Summary


S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S 9 566


CHAPTER


LIMITATION


, IMPLICATIONS,


CONCLUSIONS


Limitation


Implication


Arithmetic


Performance


S S S S S S S S S S S S7


Behavior


Achievement and


S S 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 S S C 5 5 589


Behavior


Relationship


Present


Findings


Previous


Research







APPENDIX


SPECIFIC


UNDER


VERBAL
THREE


INSTRUCTION


TYPE


GIVEN


LEARNING


STUDENTS


ACTIVITIES


. 99


ALACHUA


COUNTY


PROCEDURE


S


COMPUTATIONAL


KILLS


URVEY


KILL


FORM


COMPUTATIONAL


ANALY
A AND


SKILLS


SURVEY


ATIC


FORM


PROCEDURE


COMPETITIVE,


CRIPTIVE


STUDYING


INDIVIDUAL


DATA


COOPERATIVE,
STIC GOAL STRUCTURES


S S S S S S S S S S S 51


REFERENCES


BIOGRAPHICAL


SKETCH










Abstra


Council


ssertation


Univer


Requirement


ented


Florida
Degree o


Graduate


Partial


Doctor of


Fulfillment
Philosophy


EFFECT


LEARNING


COOPERATIVE


DISABL


PERFORMANCE


helia


COMPETITIVE


CM 1


TASK


Yvette


GAME


4 i *


WITH


BEHAVIOR


Smalley


December


, 198


Chairman:


Major


Cecil


Department


Mercer
Special


Education


purpose


tudy was


investigate


effect


cooperative


game


, competitive


game


work


heet


on the


arithmetic


performance


on-task


behavior of


learning


disabled


(LD)


dole


cents.


Also


relation


between


arithmeti c


performance


time on


examined


across


three


treatments


From the


sample


students,


were


signed


each of


three


treatment


conditions:


cooperative


competitive


work


heet


(control


group)


basi


tudy was


posttest


with


an arithmetic


pretest


as covariate.


performance


scores


were


analyzed


with


anal


covariance


(AN/COVA)


Bonferroni


procedure.


on-ta


scores


were


analyzed


with


ANCOVA and


Johnson


-Neyman


technique.


correlation


between


arithmetic


scores


on-ta


f~El!







Results


f the


data


analysis


indicate


that


work


heets


were


igni-


ficantly


better


than


cooperative


Competitive


ignifi


cantly


different


from work


heets


suggest


that


they


equally


effective.


Although


competitive


was not


significantly


different


from


-o w
cooperaf"'l~


probabil


at the


vrn


nr cur;


chance


between


hese


group


was


.Ut.jT


aver


There


was a


significant


difference


time


on-ta


between


coopera-


tive


competitive


group


, favoring


competitive


higher


ability


students


cooperate


lower


ability


students


there


was a


significant


difference


in time


on-task


between


cooperative


work


heet


group


, favoring


work


heet


higher


ability


students


cooperative


lower


ability


student


on-task


comparison


between


groups


must


cautious


y interpreted


because


much


data


relationship


overall


between


group


extrapolated.


arithmetic


However r


There


performance


was no s


on-tas


significant


significant


behavior for


work


heet


group


.05)


result


suggest


there


are variation


performance


time


on-task


various


learning


activities.


planning


instructional


need


adol


escents


tudy


ugge


sts that


work


heet


seem


work


better


overall


arithmeti c


performance.


on-ta


behavi o


, there


appear


to be


interaction


between


learning


activity


ability


level


student.


rtp













CHAPTER


IN1RUDUC


Because


wide


range


learning


problems


arithmetic


surpr


rising


note


that,


until


recently,


relatively


little


attention


been


paid


significant


problem area


(Bartel,


1978)


Bartel


suggests


that


perhaps


been


case


because


o much


literate.


with


time


effort have gone


Perhaps


essentially


it also


no under


into


reflects


standing


attempt


fact


arithmetic


make


that many


students


children


principles


are able


hide


behind


uperfi cial


rote


ability


computation.


Mercer


(1979)


pointed


out,


there


still


significant


void


literature


pertaining


arithmeti c


need


of the


learning


abled


(LD)


student.


Moreover,


there


been


little


interest


conduct no


research


learn nq


disabilities


arithmeti c


secondary


level


(Marsh,


Gearheart,


& Gearheart,


1978).


secondary


level


learning


abled


student


should


expected


develop


least


functional


abilitie


arithmetic


that


would


ensure


competence es


application


in most


occupation


consumer


need


should


high


priority


learning


abilities


special i


become


crucial


issue


determining


is~~~~~i I I *IU a IaIa


Iri


r


r I


I


"1








Although


sexually,


socially


educationally


handicapped


vocationally,


adolescent


nonetheless


maturing


imped


an inability


learn


traditional


educational


setting


(Beatti


1981).


There


is much


need


individual


attention.


literature


reports


comparati vely


fewer


activities,


programs,


tests


, methods,


material


instructing


children


with


arithmetical


difficulties


than


other


academic


areas


, science,


etc.)


(Bartel,


Purpose


primary


academic


ability


learning


disabled


adolescents


arithmeti c


(Mercer


, 1979)


efforts


have


been


aimed


at examining


teaching


arithmetic


handicapped


learners


(Brown,


veral


1975


author


; Johnson,


1979


recommend


1978


use of


educational


Mercer,


game


1979)


providing


practice


arithmetic


skill


(Coble


Brady,


1977


Gordon


1970


Kennedy


& Michon,


Lovinger,


1979


Smith


Backman,


According


Beatti e


games


are s


i gni fi cantly


better


than


drills


work


heet


both


achievement


on-ta


behavior


across


learning


abled


purpose


educable mentally


tudy was to


competi ti ve


games


investigate


remedi ati ng


retarded


efficacy


arithmetic


populations.


cooperative


deficit


learning


disabled


adolescents


9








Problem


What


effect


cooperative


competitive


games


with


learning


disabled


adolescents


on arithmetic


performance


on-task


behavior?


Variables


The


dependent


variables


study


scores


on an arithmetic


test


time


on-ta


independent


variable e


type


learn-


activity


with


three


level


cooperative


games,


compete


tive games,


traditional


work


heet


activities.


Questions


tudy was


i gned


inve


tigate


following


questions.


there


learning disabled

competitive games,


there


difference


adolescents who

and traditional


difference


arithmeti c


participate

worksheet


amount


scores


among


cooperative


learning


time


activity


on-ta


games,

ies?


k among


learning


disabled


adolescent


participate


cooperative


game


competitive


games,


traditional


work


heet


learning


activities


there


a relationship


between


performance


time


on-task


learning


disabled


dole


cent


participate


cooperative


games,


competitive


games,


traditional


work


heet


learning


activities


Del imitation


population


subject


selected


from


Howard


Middle


hnnl


fulLl u!.


twnrul


MiM~rl


Srhnnl


- Alarh ia


Cnuintv


ga~i ns V i 1 1sF


Pi n-i da


i. .


.







Limitation


tudy


limited


to adol


descent


subject


population


middle


school


learning


abled


adole


scents


cause


ssible


educational


, social,


financial


cul tural


differences


fw-r, I


1 up


I -.


i'esan tat


sample


students


remainder


United


States.


A further


limitation


tudy


center


on the


fact


that


ratio


girl


portion


learning


used


abl ed


study


students


does


learning


represent


disabled


pro-


classrooms.


these


factor


limit


general izabil ity


other


proportion


boys


girl


, age


groups


other


exceptional


children


populations.


significance


There


enough


information


reported


literature


con-


cerning

(Brown,


teac


1975


thing


Mercer


arithmetic


, 1979)


learning


Consequently,


disabled


research


learner


effort


need


continued


yield


information


applicable e


teaching


arithmeti c


to learning


disabled


students.


Definition


of Term


game


defined


as any


imul ated


contest


(play)


among


adversari


playeri


rating


under


constrain


objective


(winning)


(Gordon,


1970).


purposes


tudy


cooperative


game


method


k.








1969).


students


must


perceive


that


they


can obtain


their


goal


only


other


students


with


whom


they


linked


obtain


their


goal


(Johnson


Johnson,


ific


verbal


nstruc-


tion


on c


cooperative


playing


were


given


subject


Append


uirpo sce


competitive


game


a method


academic


intervention


character


competitive


tera


tion


student


game-


like


getting


(Beatti


Humphrey,


1969)


Student


must


perceive


that


they


can obtain


their


goal


only


other


student


with whom


they


linked


fail


obtain


their


goal


(Johnson


John son


specific


verbal


instructions


on comp


titive


playing


were


given


subject


Appendix


purposes


f thi


study


traditional


worksheet


method


teaching


exclusive


on repetition


(Beattie


, 1981)


Work


heet


were


used


study


. The


work


heet


could


com-


pleted


independently


teacher


upervi


with


student


working


alone


specific


verbal


instruction


on working


with


worksheet


were


given


subject


Appendix


learning


adolescent


that


student


through


year


enroll


learning


disabilities


(LD)


assroom


County


as defined


Bureau


action


optional


Students


(BEE


Florida


Statute


number


041,


Department


Education


, State


Florida


County








specific


learning


disabled


student


is one


exhibit


disorder


one or more


ychological


cesses


volved


under


standing


or i


using


poken


or written


language.


These


manife


disorder


tening


, thinking,


read-


renl l4


rv-.~r, *
~ ~ t ~


hmt


ear:.


ro bl E.:


imaril


visual


hear-


ing, or

turbance


motor


or t


handicaps

o any env


mental


ironmental


retardation,

deprivation.


to emotional


definition


given


by the


Florida


Florida


Bureau


atutes

, Alac


ation


number


hua


County


041,


(1981)


f Exceptional


Department


(See


students


(BEES)


Education


Appendix


tate


specific


procedure


used


Alachua


County.


purposes


tudy


general


definition


on-ta


behavior


determined


when


or all


following


occur(


subject


looking


relevant


assigned


timulu


(Beattie,


1981


Rose


, 1977)


putting


pencil


paper,


directing


gaze


toward


, and/or


hand


ques


tion


which


turn


relevant


(Cobb,


Forness


, 1973


Lay,


1969


park


1981


Stodol


1979)


purposes


study


general


definition


-tas


behavior


determined


when


subject


are not


attending


assigned


work


ttic


1981


Rose


Motor


-task


behavior


consi


away


seat


from the


behavior,


pencil


doodling,


paper


directing


conjunction


gaze


with


1(!








Summary


Learning


disabled


adolescents


frequently manifest


an academic


disability


arithmetic


skill


Little


information


exists


con-


cerning


technique


which


helpful


remediating


these


arithmeti


defi


effectiveness


cooperative


aames


com-


petitive


games,


traditional


work


heet


activities


as they


relate


learning


a bled


adolescents


' performance


on arithmetic


time


on-ta


compared.


relation


between


performance


on arithmetic


participate


time


on-task


in cooperative


learning


gaines


disabled


, competitive


adolescents


games,


tradi-


tional


worksheet


learning


activities


also


investigated.














CHAPTER


R V IEW


Llt RAlURL


review


examines


literature


concerning


use o


structional


found


games


shortage of


competiti tve


games


ssroom.


literature


urpri


regarding


to remediate


arithmeti c


ingly,


use of


researcher


cooperative


deficits.


Coopera-


tive


competitive


games


are d


discussed


in the


literature


relation


goal


structures.


Goal


structure


pecifie


type


goal


interdependence


existing


among


student


as they


work


toward


goal


accompl i


hment.


literature


supports


three


goal


structures


that

tive,


teacher

and in


use during


dividuali


tic.


instruction,


order


i.e.,


maintain


cooperative,


relevance


competi-

the


present


tudy,


researcher


addressed


only


cooperative


compete ti v


goal


structures.


literature


reviewed


section wa


located


several


method


ERIC


literature


each


was conducted.


Additionally,


Current


Index


Journal


Education


Education


Index


were


examined


from


1969


present


date.


word


used


these


searches


were


ari thmeti c,


children


(exceptional),


competi tive,


cooperative,


educational


games,


exceptional


children,


qames,








Also,


card


catalog was


used


find


relevant


textbooks


on the


above


key words.


After


relevant


textbooks


been


secured,


bibliography


each


relevant


chapters


examined


identify


additional


sources.


ren~Ce~S


ccte~d


cri teri


reference


reference


dated


subsequent


publ i


1969


refereed


journal


The reference

guidelines fo


titive)


was based


goal


Each of


on Johnson


structure


goal


Johnson


(cooperative


structure


(1975)

compe-


defined


respective


area.


Instructional


Games


Classroom


Games


being


used


extensively to


instruct


students.


Zieler


(1968)


indicate


there


several


hundred


games


on a


wide


variety


kill


available


for use


ssrooms.


These


games


range


from


word


games


school ers


imu nations


complex


political,


social,


(Gordon,


economic


1970).


proce


Inbar


sses


Stoll


high


(1970)


school


report an


college


extensive


students


review


several


theoretical


perspective


converging


reasons


for the


potential


value


use of


self


-motivating


activities


as a


teaching


medium.


"Games


from


serious


consequence


everyday


- n4 4,aJ d. an .~.4 4L4 4 it am a r~ an a.eaA


. The


1: rEn


AI"I: AIIA~


c~A; H


LlrAm








There


scarcity


research


on whether


or not particular


games


learning


effects.


Humphrey


(1965


, 1966)


studies


indicate


that


students


expo


games


involving


verbal


number


cues


play


greater


learning


than


those


exposed


same


material


by means


tradi ti ona


workbook


procedures.


Alien,


Allen


Ross


(1970)


indicate


that


mathematical


games


produce


greater


amount


1 earning


horter


time


when


compared


traditional


ass room method


Other


literature


on games


suggests


that


time


devoted


playing


game


produces


an amount


learning


equal


same


time


spent


ssroom


learning


(Anderson,


1970).


i tuati on,


learning


refers


scores


on tests


typical


those


given


course.


There


also


evidence


that


games


induce


individual


kill


or traits


that


not obtained


through


traditional


teaching


methods,


deci


ion-making


(Anderson,


1970),


sense


f efficacy


(Boocock


Coleman,


1966)


addition,


Boocock


(1969)


finding


nonsignificant


cons


tent


tionship


between


performance


game


academic


performance


repeatedly


occurred.


Inbar


toll


(1970)


this


means


"games


apparently mobili


i ntell ectual


kill


unrelated


verbal


kill


Also


f the


components


good


game


chance.


equently,


high


ability


students


class


have


an equal


chance


winning.


implication


that


"games


would


especially


valuable


underachiever


or the


non-


.g.,


or i








Inbar


Stoll


(1970)


offer


three


reasons


caution


must


used


drawing


implications


from


tudie


on games.


much


work,


been


somewhat


investigator


generally


gt"rer r l


criteria


learning


of unknown


validity


reliability;


there


need


replication


findings


with


wide


ampling


games


students.


problems


have


been


olved


regarding


use of


games


classroom.


Very precise


technique


evaluation


will


procedures


probably


have


refined


future.


developed


prove


beyond


an objective


doubt


that


game


certain


ci rcumstance


teach more


effectively


than


other


known


method


(Gordon,


1970)


Obviou


available data


extensive


enough


carve


clearcut


(Humphrey,


profile


1969)


with


regard


apparent


learning


that


existing


through


games


li terature


stimulates


many


questions,


research


need


numerous.


Advantage


advantage


Game


Clark


(1978)


note


that


although


effectiveness


educational


game


been


demonstrated,


secondary


teachers


have


adopted


technique


as an essential


component


curriculum.


~m n A


La..aSJ 4 S a .. ~n S. L n wr.n~ 44 a' e


me~, s(Ise


"L~~~i)E:


Irn mnn I.; nur F


~,,, S: s


.1L U: L,,c,~


n*mrrrr


qB


II


r*








(DeVries


lavin,


1975),


peer


tutoring


(Hamblin


, Buckholdt,


Ferr i tor


hild


loff


; DeVrie


kwell,


1976


1971)


attitudes


O' Leary


1971


(Boocock


lavin,


academic


achievement t


(Booco


child


kamp


F~ccig


1971


JQ5c;Q


: C h rls &


1976


1271
_ &, J# ,_


.4- r


197a


1 97


" urnb~e r


these


tudie


have


identified


low-ability


students


as the


primary


beneficiaries


different


learning


rate


are minimi


among


student


during


gaming.


Moreover


lavin


indicates


that


games


encourage


peer


interaction


while


individualized


instruction


result


unintentional


social


barriers


among


students.


When


Clark


examined


games


have


consi


tently


produced


outcomes


u period


those


traditional


teaching,


mention


three


suggestions


given


DeVrie


" (1)


inadequate


integration


games


into


introduction


ss-reward


games


merely


structure


'filler


instructional


material


goal


exclu


replacement


traditional


learning


methods


with


game


strategic


. 109).


Edward


DeVri


(197


note


that


effectiveness


game


been


ascri bed


their motivational


potential


feedback


reinforcement


academic


kill


opportunity


they


give


teachers


to tutor


individually


Crui


hank


Telfer


(1980)


offer


following


advantages


use o


games.


They


guarantee


participants


real


life expe


riences.


Cki~


i`3 fsci ?









They


provi de


transfer


from


training


i tuation.


They

They


provide


immedi ate


sensitive


feedback


time


on performance.


consideration.


They


enable


participants


to make


discussions


experience


They

They


consequences.


safe.

fun.


Cruickshank


Telfer


(1980)


offer


some


disadvantages.


Teachers


relatively


unfamiliar with


games.


They


require


time.


They


often


focus


on peripheral


kill


rather


than


basic


skill


They


less


accessible e


teacher


than


other


learning


materials.


They


expen


ive.


Seemingly,


only


conclu


that


drawn


here


that


there


with


both


use of


considerable


games


benefits


classroom.


several


However,


problems


research


associated


evidence


should


used


assi


judgment.


Usinn Arithmetic


Game


"Game


fun,


have


" (Keer,


i9/4,


. 18).


When


children


playing


arithmeti c


game


school


;il S 3 POCrrrr


i voo rta n t








develop


games


in such


that


they


complement


regular


arithmeti


instruction


thereby


tify more


classroom


time


recognized


meaningful


that


experiences


arithmeti c


practical


learning


applications.


accompli


However


* S I#l


Ls a


practice


drill


(John sun


1V79


total


practice


approach
and aDDli


understanding


involve
of the


-I I


d precede
learning


C


to learning
ation. The
process, the


process


practice


which


arithmeti c
meaning of
arithmetic


Practice


build


uses mea
numbers,
al struc


then


accuracy


ning,


:ture


is part
efficiency


retention


right


competence


th


demanding
ystematic


PaIrr


time,
at bu


I


'pos
wil


eful p
l help


iness


Arithmeti c


program of


practice
build


science


game


in the


the
indu


right


arithmetical


stry


are ideally


amount,


education


suited


practice.


success


an arithmetic


game


like


other material


technique


highly


an arithmetic


dependent


game


on how


serve


real


used


(Johnson


function


1979)


following


con-


ideration


offered


Select


game


John


material


son,


should


that


remembered.


relate


need


learning


f important


arithmetic


kill


concepts.


games


appropriate


time


over


hort


period


time


so that


student


interest


when


kill


are being


taught


or reviewed,


"filler"


free


time,


etc.)


Organize


game


situation


around


maximum


involvement


students.


Avoid


embarrassment,


choosing


team


-s~ c


O- -L


.* 1I


zs;rspii


T







students


compete when


appropriate


with


each


working


on material


according


ability


Plan


organize


game


carefully


so that


informality


stimulating


setting


defeat


rule


an organi


fashion


; with


the,'


ri ter


Expect


good


work


as you


would d


with


regular


swork


Stress


respon


ibility


learning


ari thmeti c


concepts


kills


follow-up


activities


emphasis


respon


ability


Teachers


should


eval uate


result


asking


themselves


whether


game


pro-


moted


ired


learning.


summary,


instructional


game


are only


one means


helping


students


learn


arithmetic.


However,


games


can serve


variety


function


ssroom


(John


son,


1979)


. building


irabl e


attitude


toward


arithmetic,


providing


individual


differences,


developing


concepts,


. making


practice


period


plea


successful,


developing


perceptual


abilitie


providing


opportunities


logical


thinking


or problem


solving.


Teachers


houl d


choose


games


carefully


reinforce


arithmetic


kill


student


are learning


their


use s


houl d


pl anned,


nts


Sgn~c








Learning


disability


arithmetic.


Al though


limited


litera-


ture


exists


oncerning


ari thmeti


problems


remediation


, large


num-


children


area


adolescent


curriculum


continue


(Wallace


experience


failure


McLoughl in,


students


a-,, e


-r~ +4,.-


stu~diedl


as s


student


with


other


learning


disab


C,~jt


reports


that


percent


children


referred


learning


abiliti


program


in her


tudy were


three


years


below the


expected


grade


level


arithmetic


computation


. Likewi


percent


learning


abled


population


used


Brenton


Gil more


(1976)


tudy


educationally


ignifi


scores


arithmetic.


pite


diver


field,


limited


information


information


provided


available,


people


some


working


general


factor


have


been


related


learning


disabilities


arithmetic.


students


culty


with


because


learning


ineffective


abiliti


arithmeti c


instruction


(Bartel


having


1978;


diffi


Otto,


McMenemy


Smith


, 1973)


which


probably


account


for more


cases


problems


arithmetic


than


other


factor.


Wallace


McLoughl in


term


"poor


teaching


" where


there


lack


sequential


kill


development' and


use o


inappropriate


teaching


material


Other


general


reasons


could


those


difficulties


abstract


Symbolic


thinking


(Bartel,


earning


readiness


(Wallace


& McLoughlin


, 1979


Otto


et al


, inappropriate


empha


emphasisi


on rote


learning


olated


kill


facts)


(Wallace


A .


C*


j,


1J i








McLoughl in,


John


1979),


& Myklebust


reading

, 1976)


memory


poor


disorder


attitude


(Bartel


anxiety


, 1978;

(Bartel,


1978)


or interest


motivation


(Wallace


& McLoughlin


1979)


These


orders


often


place


learning


disabled


adolesc


h, ee


~ri


expc


yag


,1981.


Teachers must


sensi Li


to these


general


defi


types


instructional


methods


and material


they


use with


arith-


metic


learning


disabled


students.


Games


learning


disabled


learning


disabled


student


arithmeti c


deficit


exhi bit


deficit


perception


direc-


tionality,


abstract


or logical


thinking


memory


reading


(Bartel,


1978)


Teachers


must


sens


itive


these


deficits


instructional


techniques


used


with


learning


disabled


(Beattie,


1981).


Games


give


student


variety


ways


deal


with


topic,


allow


active


participation


learning


process,


provide


repeated


sure


without


becoming


tiresome, and enrich


students


' background


(Kennedy


& Michon,


1973)


learning


disabled


student


tradi


tionally


been


given


textbook


hard


work


heet


or ditto


approach


gain


practice


(Beattie,


1981


Kennedy


Michon,


1973)


These


author


note


that


while


these


used


success


fully with


some


student


, learning


disabled


student


likely to


become


bored


likely


benefit t


from


practice.


Kennedy


and Michon


(1973)


state


that


games


can be


used


along


with


other material


stimulate


practice


sess


ions


heighten


student








guising


drill


in a


game


format may


well


foster greater


partici-


pation


student


(Beatti


game


there


is no guarantee


that


"the


smartest


" student


win.


There


no monopoly


activity


smartest


ice everybody


participate


at the


same


time


(Gordon


, 1970)


other word


students


have


real


chance


students


not have


success.


worry


Additionally

about o(rades


Gordon


when


points


playing


game


that

while


teachers


have


problems


with


notion,


removes


inhibition


from


student.


also mention


tiat


games


offer more


leader


than


generally


availabi


other


activities.


These


differences


become


apparent


student


from


there on


they


able


devote


their


attention


activity


hand without


worrying


about


cues


signal


penalty


reward


that


usually


demand


attention


because


only


game,


students


cannot


much.


Consequently,


with


use o


games,


teachers


able


provide


students


twice


basic


kill


as well


as the


areas


f deficits


as mentioned


earlier.


ummary
f Game


Related


Literature


on Use


ssroom


limited


research


available


concerning


use o


games


classroom


early


indicates


need


further


research


explora-


tion.


There


need


oser


examination


advantage


advantages


use o


games


ssroom


their


potential


as i


instructional


al ternati ves.


More


peci fically


there


is a scarcity








Whatever


technique


used


remediate


arithmeti c


deficits


with


general


learning


problems


abled,


that may


one must


present.


keep


in mind


Games


only


kinds


one means


helping


students


with


arithmeti c


needs,


should


viewed


as a


panacea


educational


problems.


Unquestionably,


earning


arithmeti c


nurtured


variety


ystemati c


practices


drill


Ari thmeti c


game


ideally


united


purposes.


Games,


used


right


time,


right


purpose


right


way,


an excellent


vehicle


reinforcing


arithmetic


kill


students


learning.


Goal


Structures


A goal


ired


tate


future


affairs


(e.g


completion


an arithmetic


assignment)


goal


structure


pecifies


type


goal


interdependence


present


among


student


as they work


toward


goal


accompli


hment


(Johnson


Johnson,


1978).


Johnson


point


that


student


assigned


teacher


can structure


small


work,


groups


win-


student


helping


lose


learning


each other


situation


goal


become


so that


proficient


determine who


best,


or on their


learning


individual istically


(see


Figure


There


three


goal


structures


that


teacher


use during


instruction


(Deut


1962;


Johnson


Johnson,


1975)


. These


goal


structures


a -





ax _____


0 0


1 a
nn


m :C






/ I --


,.^* *,"'^ '- a* .--


r--


1'



C
V 0

C

a ZN>

'-/
a


ft
0

C
ID -


I




S






I



'I.
~


u-i
LU Set
o-I'n
0-c

ooc
0


0)
=
or.,
0
.vtn

*
s-I--
0)0
-c
4-'V
0)0
0
03
+J0J
F-
0-I
cc
*rLLJ
C
O
wc
-Jo
I-.
.0
I-
CO
0=
(fl-c,
C.,-
aC>
Or
~)~0
C
C~r
-~0


I-


3E0

LU


A ****.*.*.**,


E n
00)
Sb->
4e~
"cia
a's-
4-~0J
a
00
Co


rLJ~.S
-.J LU

0(0 0
~00~
1-1-0-


a[3slCIP








However,


purposes


maintaining


relevance


tudy,


research


addressed


only


cooperative


competi ti ve


goal


structures.


Cooperative Goal
Coo^^^*^^"-*-o^_ ^-*^^.Y& ^*<


Structure


cooperative


goal


structure


"students


perceive


tha t


they


can reach


their


goal


only


other


students


with


whom


they


linked


reach


their


goal


" (Johnson


& Johnson,


1975,


example,


working


reading


together


tory,


situation


answer


would


occur when


group of


f comprehen


presenting


required


student


estions


theme


after


reque


teacher,


watching


movie


or play


together


brains torming


afterward


esent a


report


class.


review of


related


literature


ented


terms


academic


achievement


competition


, (b)


attitude


student


toward


attitude


about


school ing,


cooperation


using


coopera-


tive


goal


structure


appropriately.


Academic


achievement.


Johnson


Johnson


their


students


have


conducted


five


tudie


examining


relative


effects


coopera-


tive


, competitive


individual i


goal


structures


on achievement


variety


school


related


task


(academic


achievement


dependent


vanr


able


, along with


social


-affective mea


ures)


(Johnson


& Johnson,


1975


haran


, 1980)


Each


these


studies


indicates


superior achievement


result


cooperative


as compared


S


S S 1


~AY~ *IL: L: It 1.


*Llr rl: nr


<*rj


Ad&


A








were with


white middle


students


(Johnson,


Johnson


Johnson


Anderson,


1976


Johnson


Johnson


cott


Johnson,


Johnson


, 1979)


cooperative


condition,


in each


tudy,


subjects


were


instructed


work


together


as a


group


comply


eating


one paper


or set


papers


as a


group,


with


mremDe rs


sinar


material


ideas


ping


each


other


were


I istruc ed


make


sure


each member was


involved


agreed


on the


answers.


prai


rewarded


group


on the


basis


each


group


Tauer


tudie


achievement


1979


, except


(Johnson,


Johnson,


Johnson


Johnson,


& Johnson


kon,


kon,


, 1980)


Johnson


1979


.1I


(1980)


Johnson


each


task


Johnson


these


required


primarily math


verbal


drill-review,


or perceptual


-level


function-


in geometry,


rather


than


eliciting


assessing


higher


level


cognitive


kill


haran,


1980)


studies


that


compared


coopera-


tive with


individual i


conditions


, John


son,


Johnson


, Johnson,


Anderson


(1976)


John


son,


Johnson,


cott


(1978)


were


without


tructured


peer


tutoring


cooperative


team


condition


was s


till


more


effe


tive


tha n


individual


condition.


Johnson,


Johnson


(1980)


tudy


which


was pointed


above


as being


require


only


subjects


five


to complete


ingle


tudi


conducted


collective


task,


that


some


very


important


result


were


reported


These


researchers


used


population


graders


from middle


working


class


back-


ground


Fifteen


students,


selected


tratified


random


ampiling








individual


employed

and retr


three


ieval


learning


different


nouns;


structures.


learning


spatial


Also, e

involving


-reasoning


ach


condition


category


problem cons


ing

isting


diagram containing


an ambiguous


number


of triangle


verbal


probl ern-sol vi ng


on s '


t~im-tC


ii)rnth


stnry


problems.


i peted


instructional


sess


minutes


each.


pated


Prior


three


study


learning


students


methods,


were


partici-


familiar


with


procedure


each


condition.


finding


outperformed


indicate


student


that


oth


students

er two c


cooperative


condition


on free


condition


recall


spontaneous


retrieval


(noun


memory


task),


verbal


problem


-solving


(mathematics).


spatial


-reasoning,


student


from cooperative


competitive


condition


better


than


those


individual


condition.


Students


cooperative


condition


used


superior


trategie


were more


aware


using


thi s


approach


than


students


competitive


individualistic


condition.


cooperative


group


perceived


higher


levels


peer


support and


encouragement


learning.


former


group


displayed


superior


logic


on the


verbal


reasoning


Finally,


high


ability


student


achieved more


cooperative


than


high


condition


ability


consi


student


tently


competitive


individual


conditions.


Table


presents


review of


studies


cooperative,


competitive,


individualistic


goal


struc-








































C)
E




0)


-U
Gin-
>2
rW
n-to
4-'L)
We
a
EC
00
Ci
in
-0)
0)3-

4-~0
0=
1-5-
C).'-'
an
0
of-
C~)ti:I
0
Lt-~ en

in
0)
S.-
-o

U'-)
in


in
4-)

in
01










in
0)
S.-
In
(0
01
S








=
0
*
4.)
'0
5-
0












In
C
0
In
*
3-
(0
a
2
0
C-,











OC


'-.0,
D.in
oin
0-c


in
-V C -~
.0) I >0) in
in a
-0W-DC C ~W~C~OWD
inOrO'r ~C0
-~ 0-C in V 'C C 0r tUr..C In aw.p~-' o
in U .m30.r04-' 4-' 0 Enr-
rcCccC>WW 4-)+.) 0) COCO.DWLC
4-)..- rts*.-S...r0)S- inrCw 004-W'r
>C00)W0~0 *..C U)
(DCflOVWrCflC4C~ina+~C *inin.r
4-'..- rCS-0 rZta4-~4-)0
CD.r-OUOL ccowoa
r-Wr011fl rW0L~'rLUW0WU)L~0 Gin-
-PWUWr-,
C 0)04-)w 01i1 Q-I-~ 4-fly 0)0 C
COn-WWrU4-~CrZC.rWWCW~C
o in 0~Cr-,EV in> 0 0O4-~ in ca~Cno.r 3in '0

C-


+~
C
01-C
0)0
>0)
4,
~=0
U
C.'-'
in
*0)


in
C
0
In-
=in
5-01
in
Cr-

C
xc
*I- *r


4-0~ 0)
Sm
- *r 0
)COC
00
Gin-in fl
~ tO -r
.00. 04-'
=wUI U)
4/) US >~j
S-tn LO=
*01000~
a.~-, 0)-


IC)
43

* 3-
E
0
C-)
0
9-- ro
0 0


0
2
CE 0
0)010 5..
as-u a
>~a) .4-'
*rr- C
4- *Or-W
Gin- D.0r- 2
~V 0 O~3 0)
.4-' 0
IOU *tflW
..Cn-L..C
n-S 00 U
EU)r-C4-)0
5- 0-Cr U
4-' sOLO,
0)4-C C4-'r
00 OcOin-C



f-tn i >~,
II 010
U) r- ~ *r a
In (0
0 *E~- o. s-.- o
II II 00) Ioa~ C
S... 4.-f- Cr C 04-'4-n- C
I 4-3 r-00Cr- r-O 0
0) *inI.O S..-' SCO in..-
r-WWWn-mLfl 34-'C~W4-)
*WWr-EUII t0*0
rV.4~)4.) in 0~r 0) EC
EOOn-VWC4-E *-o.c .0)0
LeL4-)*r*rEU)C4-U
WOWW>(0L.4.)O~r000 I
WLGJ
*r4-'020 WS-inVo~ al-U
CinOOC~O)4-)tflWCC0t00
~r-O'-eC'JCcfl 'U En-rOE C)











U,
.4-)
9-
In
43

















U)
W
5-
U)
"5
0)
S









C
0
* 9-
4-)
'U
5-
C





U)
C
0
U)
*6"~
5-
0
a
S
0
C-,










C.,
oc


e-0)
O.U)


4--
0 4)
CI
004)
wCc.Cw C
4-~ 00 4-~ 0. 0 SC 5-
on-' tflo.UC
to
s-c.
o.uwc..c WE
L-ca0 VC~CO
CWEUZL'4-C00U
0 0.U Cfl4~ 0 tU.Cn-
0 U) 4-)..C C
4)5- 9- to
C U) 1-. EU C r 4.) .a.c
L0)WC *0ES~ .4.).
WC.C.0>n-WO>
0.0 U U) r 4-i V ~w 4.)
OS- 'U L-'10 0.0 0.Sc CV
04)GJWC43UCWC
o U) 4.) 0.*r U 0 Cd) ~r 5


rVO C.-' 4)
C CCIL.
V 0 UIV C tU C
0J CC.CQOW
4)4-) 0 0+~wU 'OW
rCw 4- WL)
z w+ us'- 0)2 C
u1E0...~LCC C
43 4) 0) 20 050 43 4-'
1-> U 0) On- 5.C 0.
435-V O.u) 04)43
U
0.caUtnOwCU
'u-C) C ZUO0
4)05- 9-.
.9- 435-0 Wcfl'4-
4~) 5- 0543 C 5- Cr
WWC.CO>WO4)
O.ac CU un- 4-n- U)
S 055-0 1-V4-4
On-4) 4)4) C*.-n-4-.
CJaC U)+J O.rVV 0


IWU)
Is-Us-
.rWCW &
4)0.043 U,
4.) 4-~c. a) C
a,
S.. 0) .4- 0%-%5
4-'CULr- lAW
=3:04)4)4)4)>
wotocnv LW
V4-' U4).r...r
V 0 C4) 'USC
+~ CA 0) 0) On- C U
CflW>4-) 4-'CC4-'
V4-'0 IA
*0)
9-4.i Un ~






U)
>1
0
V
to


I
0I
=4-
4)9-
sr-a)
'(AU)
5,-
*0=0
C'.- S
CU) 4)
S-CU)
CA 4)'"- Cd)
>i-4-3 4)


r C
4)
to ,-'r-~C 0 S
* v-o =vVc'~ a
e ~' -
4.) V *r- 1- 0 0 r U)
~ 0 E F fl 4-) WI di
VOl *LUG3 CVOtU
4) *WCW5
V.C3fl'UU72O 4)
'U4-~OO EOJCU>A-
LtOrr-' (A e- 0) I


Us- I
44)
4305n-uI1~ 5-C
ar~,-Sc a, 4)0
.O.CCu.c 4-
4-
Cd) C cfl *r *r 0.
WCEU.UC 0EC
00
lAW Sc *4-)U*r-
C 4~)
ifl.C4.) OCr
0UU4-W UWSc
4-~EU0Ow *~u-WC
Sc 0.4- 3 0
*flO.iU5-4Ju
coca,
r0&flC ucs.O
CU) n-
CUC 4-JCU7Wn-
EUVUEU U0
C C.C C W.CC C C
Ow 4.) gU~r~4J 43..-


C
C4-) 0 4)43
On-Vn- lAs-
9-0)4)4-' GIn-
4)011)0.5- 4-itO
Cz=W0 C
4)0
>~L0.CC0
a 0)4) z.u- GIn-
>*~e a, 0.11) C 54-'
Wul4-) S.. wU)
.r-00.C5-0>4J
.C4-)LU4)WW
u
Sc
o s-crc
'U4- C4- 0CC
~WOO 04--.--C





4-
I Old)
C.) 43
404-~

4-'~OC
U) On-"-
c c vi
n-CU) U
n-WOO
'04 U)tO 4)


I 0
5.I~ > 4,)
UWO r-Gi i-s
0C.)
0 (AC 41tfl
sOC I 0WC.~
a WWcn
0 S-s-C
o > ~u- OSC 4)4.)
Can- Cfl4-I-4-
V 00 1- 4- 0)
C *r 5.- 4) *r C
9-5,-' 4.) ~. 0.C~J V


a

WC
(0
s-au
0.r-


U) (A
Cl, 9-
10 *
9- U) 4-
0=4)
=6~
01004fl4- to
CS-E4)wE
.rc) .-40 _




I

-Cl WO
ww a
mn4)c tnt
0202
.4~34~) to>
0.tn *02~0
o
to
0.-' tnC S.-
r4-~r~ 5-.
*rft~ 0)0
Cfl0r 0.
(no- =5=0.
4-) CeO =
0L-O
0202 .02
*fl5= Cl) 0.> 1-
.00)02 *r02
00202
(flar 0)000.


o.)c-o
CrW
.7- Cl)
Zulu) C
Ss.+)r (nO
to C.C4-)~
0202004-J
r~0tO W'r
= n0
L+~ >~~0C
0Cflr0
4- rLflU

Car-WrO
WI- C.~= 5-
2r 024)02
W~D 0)
0)0
to '*020
s-SC o..c
Z 0)00)0)
Or Or.C
or 0~C4-)


02 .
>2
02 r in in
SrAC4-~.r 02
-o 00~OWC
C 4-'02L4-02
*i-C 0.4J4-)'r-E
.7- 0 U) ,- *r ,- 0)
o 4-~5-to4-~
02 4-'EW
4-' >~0.W tO Or
S.- 05=
02r02002L0
Ltflr>2>inttS
(U 0) *r *r' in
L.4~) OS..
2 tOUin~r-r-0)
00) WLWU.C
0CL4-W0 0)
.7- 0)4-5= 0-V7-
0.5-0 0020
0(00202 L3V
OWS..Sc4-OO
L)g- 0)4~) 024-' tO


in
02
=
in
(0
02
r







C
0

to
S..
=
a








in
C
0
to
r
S..
to
a
2
0











OC
4)2
'-a)
0-u,
oil)
0-C


00
*rW I- I
04-'4-Q) 02 0Ln
.' I
4) r0.r>~.r4- 5=0)
C 4-~4)00 ow
02 3S~OUrC (fin
2 W4-)CWr-C0J C
02 *rr-tU0.rO0 to
>10 tnn.v-= 4)02
02 5-
02 02 0 02 Cl) ~r- C cn
Sc
oil)
in to w~~am S.. C 024-)
in 0C>S 10r4-C
02 02 02.r to C 02S4- 02
r-+.)CNJ Efl4-)4-'C~J 0,-'--C S


in
02
4-is-
C4-
* I-
2>~in
Cu>,,
to
'.0 -o
IL
LI) wr-
~- a,-


4-~0) in
02
024-jo 0
02
02 0. a4~i o
*r 4~) AC in in ~ 0 r
0in10LL.4-)S-L
C 4-"02024-'inC
0.Sc0W02
00 4) '0
4-'W0
(nO)
0
*,-4-)4J On-O
*C*rLJ S.-
aS~.-WwL0W
o Or4- >4-s 34.
OWfl4-~w- I- 0 '-
Or- tO rO.4-' 0+~r-


AC Win
U >4-SO
0210 WS-W0.r- -
4J0 rCOCOLU2
r '5=
artnoo
3u)Cfltoo)tn n
tOll Cin N-
N-
0)0 Or CA ~iI
-o
in
LCVWrS00
O)r Sc 05-0>5-
ScS-04-'CC aroo)
4-~0S-0Wtt5'0II C
* 9% 3 -' ~ t Li *-




27
0
0*0I
>0 t-CGJ
O~I.r-.CI Atom>
C4-4-~4-'OCC 4)
C in U 0 S.. *~~r
LOVEOCnV UWr-.C
00.S-rucnOS..3 4~00
0) to 0~00eeCL.0
in L00)WOr-tc
W04-)rSCL~+J0) Wot-
>E Wa)O '4- *LUr
= tnC.rEW (no 0
in 4-'V 0 0 *5
0 0W'OO) *aVS-0 0
W0+~3-W4-~.CtO4-~In0
0.Er0J3-WrUS.UZ.C4-~
o 04-)+' 0).4~)4.) VIZ Or U ~C
OL-'0Wtfl4-)WO.t-0r0
o atu.c 0-0 104-' 04-v-.C E

'0
0) X

~to~i~

4-) 4-' V 0 0)
0>-)00U0)V4-~E CC C
Sm-CrO 0-0.L- r16.100
O~0r>L~W0tflZE 4-~WLLCflU 4-~rrO~.
in .rO)C.00J4-)0tfli1)EOr C iflC'JC+~COtfl
0 r-flL.V *rL~UL+' 0)0.00 4.' 04.C3-L
5- OWC *EW ZOU5->CC40 U>,VO4JWO)
.C*0..S-S-OWWWO)CO> 0.0 4J434)
11) 1- U'.-.' 00) .r+J.rr)4.r+) 0 (flr 4~)0) 0)0..
0 rOtC 04-' 0(1) U504-.C (fl*r. 0+' .00(1) LV.C
C) 0..CWU100JA 00U04-'CU---O S-
S OUI-3 V+-'.-v1u~ Ca.uCWn3>)tnhCWC
0 WV C.) 10 V Wr'4-C 04-'103u-O
.0) *rOO)00 *)~,C *~S4-W "rrWOOE
r'4JCJ> tC4-~n4-' O')Cfl.C 0~tfl 0~-C 2W> (1) 2+' S.. 0


-o
O
nfl
C
Ce- C 00
4..) 0
C *1~
o 4.) 5-0
C) 0 ~LC)
1.- 0
I
I- 0 0
r-4-
0)
-o
to
I- A
t4~
I-a)
-o aro
5- InL.OU~W
(1) -o c (C >,, 4-) Ow
C C 0 34~3 *~r-5Cr- USC
o OwCfl+'U4-OU
(1) (flJOL-4-'toCr--0
Sr *C COJOOJO
S.. (1)00)00
'0 >rV 010-'~
0- 4-' 0 2 V *e C 0
E
o O2trOJCWOS-0J4-'4-)
C) OC-'4-)O+'3.W+'CC
0 04-s 0) EtnO 0) CO 0)
C) U eu.c to 0 4-' 0.r U 2

U'
4/) 0) In
5- tnt-
0 t-V 5- V
4J'C00 S-Vt- I 0)0)
04-' tofl'r-w 0 C0 C
OC ELflSII 0~EOt0
VL.Ufl
(CC 0O.C CO)V)r a V 04-'>,
r0~ U .1-) '00. in *tn 3-0+'
0-tn coy) 4-'UIcn0.0.r-Or-t-C
0(1) >Ow>.~ eCOVLEOL'r
V-CSC'oC,--o C wOUO.fl
C u vn Ttn..- OOG'b fr~4(t~ rsv'n-4- tn








Student


attitudes


about


cooperation


competition


attitude


toward


choosing.


There


cons


iderable


amount


research


that


indicates


cooperative


learning


condition


when


com-


pared


comp


titive


ones


, promote


more


itiv


relationships


among


ii! dont C


motivate on


Lo do


well


as s


student


will


S~vP


'aL..... (A)


learning


activities


, po


itive


self


-attitude


variety


other


affective


ment


(Johnson


cognitive

& Ahlgren,


learning


1976


outcomes


John


including


Johnson


higher


, & Anderson


achieve-

, 1978).


Furthermore


school


there


as being


evidence


competitively


that


tructured


majority


, but


prefer


students


perceive


cooperative


experiences


(Johnson


John


son,


1976),


that


American


student


more


competiti tive


than


are children


from other


countries


become


more


competitive


longer


they


school


or the


older


they


become


(John son


while


Johnson,


cooperation


1975)


among


hort


students


research


more


implie


facilitative


that


education,


competition


more


frequently


emphasis


Johnson


Ahlgren


(1976)


submitted


correlational


analyses


determine


relation


hips


between


cales measuring


student


attitudes


toward


cooperation


competition


scale


means


during


their


attitudes


toward


relationship p


with


school


personnel,


motivation


learn


, (c)


relationship


with


other


student


involvement


learning

restraint


activity


on s


, (e)


student


personal


behavior.


worth


as a


Over


student,


students


grade


I*rmc~


nn F k


n? r


~ln,?tk ?







Data


on s


student


attitude


were


obtained with


the Minnesota


School


Affective


Assessment


(MSAA)


. The MSAA


cons


ists


parts


seri


five-level


semantic


differential


tion


erie


four-


level


true-


items.


Finding


(c),


aoove


Snarti cnl


interest


ore snt


will


SCuSSe


Finding


regarding


being


motivated


learn


reveal


student


cooperativeness


positively


related


student


seeing


themselves


as being


intrinsically motivated


learn


more


cooperative


students


' attitudes


also


indicate


confidence


their


efforts


as determinants


their


own school


success.


They


value


getting


good


grade


, being


good


student


believing


that


idea


, feelings


learning


ideas


significant


positive.


tudy


also


indicates


seeing


that


themsel ve


competitiveness


as being


positively


extrin


related


ically motivated


students


el ementary


junior


high


school


more


competitive


students


attitudes,


how-


ever,


somewhat


related


intrinsic


motivation


being


good


students


getting


good


grades


senior


high


school


Finding


concerning


students


relationships


with


other


students


indicate


that


cooperativeness


positively


related


to wanting


listen


help,


school work


with


other


students.


also


positive


attitudes


toward


students


not a


smart


or smarter


than


oneself,


being


liked


other


student


Coopera-


tive


attitudes


are negatively


related


wanting


to work


alone.


(b)








Ii king


to work


alone,


although


relation


decreases


in high


school.


Finally,


finding


student


involvement


learning


acti vi ti


indi


that


cooperativeness


fairly


consistently


related


posi


tively


seeing


these


as expressing


their


ideas


feeling


large


small


classes


tending


teacher


There


relation


between


compete ti veness


belief


that


able


express


onese


tened


hers,


able


or answer


ques


tions


class


decr


eases


becomes


nsigni fi cant


senior


high


school


Johnson


, Johnson,


Anderson


(1978)


conducted


similar


tudy


with


,l00


student


grade


four


, measuring


attitudes


toward


cooperation,


competition,


individual i


attitudes


toward


same


as (a)


through


above.


Findings


corroborate


those


found


above


tudy.


cooperative


goal


structure


appropriately


From


practical


that


perspective,


cooperative


Johnson


goal


Johnson


structure


(1975,


used much


1978)


more


recommend


frequently


instructional


situations


should


used most


time


school


should


provide


overall


context


learning


conditions


r which


effective


irable


are whenever


important


whenever


students


to be


important


motivated,


master


involved,


retain


apply


attend-


knowledge


kill


whenever


itive


student


attitude


are desired.








someone


else,


then,


cooperative


goal


structuring


bould


used.


uppl mental


ompeti ti ve


individual


goal


structures


would


be more


appropriate


situation


imple


task


Jo


how to


hnson and

implement


Johnson


further


competitive


contend

individu


that most


teachers


know


structures


within


instructional


implementing


activity


cooperative


. However,


tructured


learning


teacher


often


role


ambiguou


teacher


role


cooperative


instruction


reviewed


section.


Essentially,


coop


rative


teaching


involve


assigning


group


goal,


member


as producing


on the


ingle


group


product,


product


rewarding


on a


fixed


every


group


standards.


However,


teaching


cooperative


lesson


involves


more


than


setting


cooperative


goal


structure.


A brief


summary


Johnson


Johnson


tips


on the


teacher


role


cooperative


instruction


follow


pecify


instructional


objective


as much


as poss


ible


aS


elect


optimal


group


based


on the


student


resources


needed


complete


lesson.


Assign


students


groups


(maximi


zing


heterogeneity),


randomly


student


assign


choose


ensure


group


good mixture


or group


or allow


ability


Arrange


classroom


group


avoid


other


student


interference


and ma


ximi


group


participation


Circles


best.


Avoid


long tables.










Explain


task


cooperative


goal


structure.


Observe


tudent-


student


interaction.


Intervene


as a


consul tant.


Evaluate


group


products,


using


criterion-referenced


evaluation


system.


ummary


research


on cooperative


goal


structure.


When


task


involves


solving,


cooperative


free


research


learning


recall,


spontaneous


tudie


condition


Johnson


results


retrieval


Johnson


higher


verbal

indicate


achievement


problem


that


than


competi ti ve

siderable e


individual i


videnc


that


learning


cooperative


condi tions


learning


condition


There


when


con-


compared


with


competiti tive


ones


have


more


itive


relationship p


with


students


being motivated


learn,


their


relationship


with


other


students,


their


that


involvement


cooperate v


learning


goal


activity


structure


been


used


recommended


vast majority


instructional


situation


very


impl


completed


without


someone


assisting


.1


task


very


impl


then


competitive


or individual


goal


structures


recommended.


Competitive


Goal


structures


students


competitive


structure


they


reach


their


goal


only


, the


other


student


with


whom


they


linked


fail


reach


goal


" (Johnson


Johnson


1978


'P.


a~~i -S a


q


I


r I


I


r r


I


I


rr


I










i tuation


a class


spelling


contest


where


students


class


tart off


contest


cont


conti nues


until


student


outperforms


other


students


review of


related


literature


presented


terms


academic


achievement


using


competi ti ve


goal


structure


appropriately.


Academi c


achievement.


Miller


Hamblin


(1963)


reviewed


concern


operative


competitive


goal


structures.


They


found


that


competi tive


learni ng


ulted


higher


achievement


than


cooperative


learning,


while


cooperative


learning


demonstrated


as more


effective.


Michael


(1977)


selected


studies


review on


three


goal


structures


found


that


seven


competitive


learning


promoted


higher


achievement


than


cooperative


or indivi-


duali


learning


research


indicates


that


competition may


superior


cooperative


or individual i


goal


structures


when


task


imple


drill


activity


or when


heer


quantity


work


ired


on a


mechanical


or skill


-oriented


task


that


require


little


help


from another


person


(Johnson


& Johnson,


1975,


1978)


Clayton


(1964)


spent


classroom where


implemented


~fl


t of


~nmr?~s


rwol "ins


1],f


control


u's ed


three


category


ompeti tive


drill


namely,


-competition,


2 .jA~ t.. .- .~ .t A-I I ~ t2 1.A J~ 2-t-


r.,J?,


ty pel~r; t.i nr3


$nppCt


Jf..? .J.,1


L -' L1


-I


....-.


aLI








simple


so that


students


' time will


wasted


explaining


pro-


cedure


reporting


result


Students


seem


prefer


compete


tive


drill


where


hort


bursts


peed


drill


accuracy


involved


-competition method


seems


be most


appropriate


when


drill


material


procedure


could


used


with


of te


three method


competition


uti ii


nation


variety


competitive


overuse


procedure


one type


more


feasible


competitive


than


procedure


use and


to the


excl u


probably


ion of


others.


student


tend


to respond


much


better


to competitive


drill


when


drill


overemphasi


typewriting


ssroom.


Cli fford


(1971)


found


individual


competition


trengthen


performance


more


effe


tively


than


both


individual


group


reward


contingencies.


Individual


competition wa


more


effective


than


individual


reward


con-


tingencie


in strengthening


students


performances


on digit-


letter


titution


problems.


Deut


(195


conducted


an experiment


demon


state


effects


"competitive


situation"


"cooperative


i tuati on"


upon


achievement,


cohesion


, and


other matters


The


experiment went


roughly


as follow


students


indu


trial


psychology


sses


were


given


hypothetical


human


relation


problems


scuss


solve.


There


were


different


reward


structures


some


sses


each member wa


told


that


four


peer


would d


each


ranked


from


to five


according


contribution


each


to the


cussion


problem


solution


semester








semester.


five


other


classes,


each


class


tol d


that


would


ranked


as a class


from one


to five


on the


basi


solu-


tion


problems.


semes


ter,


rank


five


sses


were


averaged,


the members


each


graded


according


their


average


rank.


nTheretore,


condi tion


(a),


each


student


being


compared


with


iassmates


co nd i


tion


(b),


each


class


was being


compared


with


other


classes


Deutsch


finding


favor


condition


solution


problems


were


better


among


asses


condition


class


members


hi ndered


another


scussion


under


condition


(a),


aided


another


under


condition


(b);


feeling


class


members


toward


another was


more


positive


under


condition


than


under


condition


(a).


structure


reward


under


condition


included


individuals


compared


with


other


same


group


rewarded


relative


these


others.


produced


competitiveness


between


individual


other


hand,


condition


(b),


groups


were


compared


with


other


group


rewarded


other


groups.


produced


compete ti ve-


ness


between


groups


although


there was


competition


both


situations,


second


kind


competition


produced


very


different


cons


sequence


from


achievement,


group members'


feeling


toward


one another


unity


group.


long


group


compete ng


again


t other


groups,


one member


achieve-


ment


benefitted,


rather


than


lowered,


e position of


other members


(b);







When


competition


between


individual


that


one individual


achievement


lowered


position


other


group


members


produced


interference


with


one person


effort


other


members


When


, though


comet ti tion


interference


between


perhaps


mroup


unconscious


, there


ubtle.


support


rculrp


m-ts


other


group.


comp


titive


goal


structure


approach


appropriately


Al though


many


research


tudie


indicate


that


cooperative


learning


condition


more


ffectiv


than


competitive


ones


there


ondi-


tion


under


which


competitive


learning


conditions


used


profitably


teacher.


ents


can compete


enjoyment


or lose


, competitive


drill


are an effect


tive


chang


pace


classroom


(John son


Johnson


, 197


Johnson


and Johnson

performance


heer


state


on a


quantity


that

impli


tition


drill


work


activity


ired


on a


effec

or a


tive


peed-


project


that


increa


related


requires


student


when


minimal


or no


assi


tance


from


another


person


spelling,


vocabulary


math


drill


, writing


practice


word


recognition


recall


facts


dates,


hand


coordination


athletic


contests


other


word


when


nstructi onal


goal


are to


review


drill


or achi


quantity


on a


impl


task


teacher may wi


use competition


A brief


summary


John


Johnson


follows


Competition


can be


produ


tively


used


when


important


whether


one win


or 1


oses.


Otherwi


-











students


should


perceive


that


they


have


an equal


chance


winning.


elements


chance


turn


, go


back


one space


. Students


will


compete


they


perceive


they


have


equal


chance


Make


sure


spec


, proc


ansz'ers


4I'~fl~


clear.


Otherwi se


student


will


increase


their


anxiety,


which


ruin


competition.


students


their


need


competitor


able


during


observe


competition,


progress


so that


they


can determine


whether


they


ahead


or behind.


Summary


research


on competitive


goal


structure.


When


instructional


goal


review,


drill,


or achieve


quantity


on a


imple


task


, the


Johnson


' research


indicate


that


competitive


learn-


condition


result


more


increased


than


cooperative


student


or an individualistic


performance.


been


condition


recommended


that


competi ti ve


goal


structure


used


when


important


whether


or 1


oses,


when


students


perceive


they


have


equal


chance


when


clearly


defined


rules,


procedures


answers


are communicated


beginning,


where


students


evaluate


their


skill









summary


Related


Li terature


scarcity


literature


available


concerning


games


as an instructional


al ternati ve


ssroom


clearly


dinb


cates


need


further


research


ifically,


there


limited


literature


on arithmeti c


remediation


.need


learning


disabled


tudeht.


While


ari thmeti


games


ideally


united


ystemati c


practice


drill


there


li terature


on cooperative


compete ti ve


games


reinforcing


remedi ati ng


arithmeti c


learning.


However,


there


considerable e


literature


on cooperative


compete ti ve


goal


structures


which


obviously


related


games.


There


structures


disagreement


on achievement


relative


productivity


effects


Some


rese


arch


goal

clearly


indicates


that


cooperative


1 earni ng


condition


result


higher


achievement,


while


other


research


indicates that competitive


learning


conditions


result


higher


achievement.


There


evidence


that


both


cooperative


competi ti v


condition


have


i ti ve


relationship


student


attitude


about


cooperation


competi ti on


attitude


towa rd


schooling


both


goal


structures


ffec


tive,


when


used


wi-th


right


instructional


goal


riqnt


need


to look


at cooperative


competitive


games


remedi ate


basi


math


facts.


ri ~i~














CHAPTER


METHODS


nf8Cl'.'.SE UE


Chapter


present


method


procedures


study


chapter


organi


into


four major


section


descrip-


tion


sample,


description


instrument,


description


procedures


which


include


group


assignment


intervention


experimental


group


control


group,


observation


on-task


posttest,


data


analy


Sampl e


research h


study wa


conducted


Alachua


County


Public


school


System,


Gaine


ville,


Florida.


Al achua


County


ocated


in north


central


Florida.


subject


cons


ixth


through


eighth


grade


learning


disabled


adole


cent


enrolled


exceptional


student


education


(ESE)


sses


mathemati


criteria


used


determine


specific


learning


abilities


Appendix


Subject


' ages


ranged


from


subject


' scores


.^ -,.L aL- -^ e.


SYLIYY


CI.?11


r, ,,


I n.


~L.-~-YL-


df L








subjects


were


assigned


to the


three


learning


activity


Twelve


subjects


were


assigned


to participate


in cooperative


games,


competitive


game


worked


with


tradi ti onal


work


heet


group


consi


similar


tribution


girl


grade


levels


through


eight)


Tour


percent


or the


subjects


were


obtained


from


one school


percent


from another


instrument


instrument


selected


use i


tudy was


modified


version


Computational


Skill


survey,


test


from


Brigance


Diagnostic

bv Albert


Inventory


Brigance


essential


(1981),


kill


signed


Brigance


peci fi call


was developed

secondary


students


with


special


need


Computational


kill


urvey


forms


Appendix


A and


compri


researcher


added


items


an additional


on each


item


form


each


form


so that


there


were


ari thmeti c


problems


to represent


each


kill


analy


ective


Appendi


purpose


compu-


tati onal


assessment


determine


which


basic


computati onal


kills


, addition,


ubtra


tion,


multiplication,


divi


ion)


student


mastered


well


which


kill


should


taught


material


have


been


designed


so that


they


can be


used


either


individual


or groups


or both,


with


student


giving


or her


responses


writing.


fv~r4 rWnr~


T nrhan+nnv'i


rn rr 4 C


LI s,1


aS a v n


- Via CQ a -an, an


ns


r


c-









representing


Langley


programs


Vancouver.


states


event


Canada


critriterion-refierenced


test


(excluding


"Oral


Reading"


"Reading


Comprehension


were


rated


at least


assess


percent


respect ve


ki l


personnel


sequence.


as having


live


validity


UGI cri


referenced


test


were


rated


more


than


1U percent


or tne peursn-


as not


having


adequate


validity


(Brigance,


1981)


Reliability


information


reported


Inventory.


Procedures


Group


Assignment


independent


variable


study wa


type of


learning


activity which


three


level


cooperative


game


(experimental


group


competitive


games


(experimental


group


traditional


worksheet


(control


group);


Thirty-


learning


abled


adol


with


disability


arithmeti c


from


grade


eight


student


constituted


placement


ample


either


tudy


experimental


section


or control


group


condu


following


manner


student


were


administered


Computational


Skill


urvey,


form A,


which


used


as a


screening


device


(prete


determine


students


with


arithmeti c


ability


four


operational


areas


arithme-


, addition,


ubtraction


, multiplication,


divis


ion)


;


.


l








more


than


subject


attending


math


classes


period


(first


through


event)


either


school


Because


treatment


conditions


required


groups


children


, subj


ects


were


assigned


treatment


based


on the


number


student


attending


math


asses


each


period.


yN'a ~O


-.t, -


roupe


ther


Twelve


subj


were


assigned


to the


c~;,c :-


'"'pr?


r~' !fl


competitive games


group,


traditional


work


heet


group.


Intervention


Experimental


Group


tudy


implemented


cooperative


competitive


conditions


as cons


used


tructive


series


effective


studies


possible


Johnson


based


on the


Johnson


procedure


(197


with


few modification


competitive


games


group


condition


Appendix


researcher


trained


teacher


facilitate


coopera-


tive


game


competitive


game,


traditional


work


heet


learning


activities


researcher


served


as the


second


teacher


Each


tudy


teacher met


presentation


with


learning


researcher


activities


review


so that


plan


relevant


pro-


cedure


were


strictly followed.


teacher


rotated


school


weekly,


on the


last


week


they


rotated


school


every


other


an even


number


days.


Each


teacher


taught


each


learning


acti vi


ties


daily.


study


focused


on remediating


arithmetic


abiliti


during


arithmeti c


period


subjects


went


signed


*i th


tc~


tnrip








written


so that


direction


explaining


instructions were consi


tent


tasks


between


learning


teachers


condition


daily


activities


(games


work


heets)


their


response


sheets


were


distributed.


total


i nstructi onal


time was


25 minute


After


i nstructi onal


period,


5 minutes


were


used


to collect


score


response


heets,


with


number wrong


on each


response


heet


taken


as the


group


score


or individual


score.


The work


assignments


were


based


on each


subject


instructional


level


f the


four


operational


areas.


determi ned


cons


tency


ari thmeti c


problem


incorrect


on the


screen


test


rank


order


addition,


ubtraction,


multiplication,


divi


ion.


other words,


subject


had mo


t of


addition


ubtraction


problems


correct


on the


screening


consi


tently


sed multiplication


problems,


received


instruction


in multiplica-


tion.


When


subject mastered


percent)


operational


area


initially


given


instruction


was given


instruction


next


respective


area.


intervention


technique


used


experimental


group


con-


cooperative


game


to remediate


arithmeti c


abilities.


games


used


emphasis


appropriate


arithmetic


content


each


subject.


cooperative


game


activity


subjects


were


assigned


were


four


instructed


groups


work


four


group


together


as a


three member


group,


each.


completing


Subjects


daily


response


heet as


group,


with


members


haring


material








derive


each


answer


, seeking


help


clarification


from


fell ow


group


member


rather


than


teacher.


Subjects


each


group were


quired


paper,


indi


ating


that


they


understood


how to


olve


each


problem


Each


teacher


randomly


selected


subject


from each


group


explain


LOS


oA ve


a prouemlf ds


heck


on whether


or nor s


subject


were


following


instru


actions


making


sure


everyone


understood


solve


each


problem.


members


cooperative


game


group


received


group


score.


competition


between


group


or between


person


structured


into


eval nation.


teacher


praised


rewarded


groups


on the


basi


each


group


achievement.


intervention


technique


used


experimental


group


con-


competitive


games


remedi ate


arithmeti c


ability


hese


games


emphasis


appropri ate


arithmeti c


content


each


subject.


likelihood


competitive


that


game


cons


activity was


tructive


stru


tured


appropriate


maximi


use of


competition


would d


demon


treated.


subject


were


assigned


four


ster


four


terms


three


subjects


each


ensure


that all


subject


learning


activity


believed


that


they


an equal


chance


winning,


sters


competed


place


After


each


instru


tional


sess


ion,


subjects


were


informed


results.


Each


uster member


gameboard


identical.


el ement


chance,


surprl


factors


as go


jail


space,


work


extra math


problem were


added


gameboard


designed


re-








speed


competed,


equivocal

they were


(Mercer &

instructed


Mercer,


work


1981)


alone,


While


subjects


attempt


their


clusters,


seek


help


clarification


from


teacher


when


they


needed


subjects


were


seated with


others


their


cluster


large


table e.


Although


subject


worked


alone,


they


were


instructed


aware


their


competitors


' progress


noticing


when


they


raised


their


hands


signal


completion


task,


subjects


raised


their


hands,


teacher


collected


response


sheets


numbered


them


order


received.


response


sheets


were


scored


individually


determine


place within


each


cluster


wi nners


were


determi ned


fini


first


with


greatest


amount


accuracy


teacher


praised


rewarded


on the


individual


performance


winner


each


cluster


Control


Group


control


group


consi


subjects


working


with


traditional


work


heet


(ditto


The worksheet


been


regular


class


room


teachers


' traditional


method


remediating


arithmetic


abilities


traditional


worksheets


used


emphasized


appropriate


arithmeti c


content


each


subject.


tradi tional


work


heet


activity


subj


were


instructed


to work


alone,


avoid


inter-


action with


from


other


teacher


their


ubje


best


were


work


help


instructed


work


clarification


their










Each


each


subject


respective


received in

arithmetic


tervention

operation,


on their

regardli


nstructi onal


level


or her


group


placement.


duration


tudy wa


approximately


period


auction


over


three week


period


Duri ng


study


observation


were


made


subjects


on-task


behavior while


working


three


learning


activity e


tudy,


subjects


were


given


form


Computational


kill


survey


STh


hynath


eses


were


ted.


Observation


Behavior


dependent


variable


included


study were


scores


on the


arithmeti c


ttest


time


on-ta


,which


obse


rved


measured


using


following


procedure.


servers


used


data


collection


subject


on-task


behavior


three


types


learning


activity


were


doctoral


students


Department


special


action


College


ation.


Prior


data


coll


tion,


servers


were


trai ned


behavioral


servers


researcher


during


-experimental


training


period.


researcher


used


minute


videotape


middle


school


ari thmeti


esson


classroom


setting


train


servers.


ervers


acquired


l1owing


accura


serva


tion


time


on-ta


definition


Chapter


Appendi


watch


ility


while


with


viewing


record ng


videotape.


form


Neither








serve


on videotape.


After


observers


recorded


assigned


students


on-task


behavior


form


, Appendi


inter


rater


agreement


ascertained


between


paired


servers


interrater


agreement


required


paired


observers


three


consecutive


times


before


data


col i section


began.


duration


tudy


consi


approximately


periods


instruction


with


assigned


activities


over


three-week


period.


occasions


observer


random,


erved


during


subject


tudy


on three


period.


different


observer


observed


no more


than


three


subject


sess


ion.


subjects


were


served


their


arithmeti c


sses


, during


-minute


nstruc-


tional


time


allowed


working


on the


three


type


learning


activity


observer


synchroni zed


their watch


looked


subjects


they were


observing


every


second


subjects


were on-ta


observer


recorded


"+" and


-task


servers


recorded


II II


allowed


observation


subject,


each


time


subject


observed


Arithmeti c


Posttest


subject


were


admini


tered


an arithmetic


sttest,


form


Computational


kill


survey,


to determine


difference


between


groups.


different


test


days


admini


(last


tered


days


subject


study)


individually


highest


on two


score


two was


used.








Design


Data


Analysis


purpose


study was


determine


effect


cooperative


competitive


games


on arithmeti


performance


on-task


behavior


ivity


independent


La'reo!


evel


variable


coope


was the


rati


type

mes,


learn-


compe--


titive


game


, and


traditional


work


dependent


variables


were


scores


vey)


time


on the


on-tas


arithmetic


postte


relation


(Computational


between


performance


kill


on arith-


metic


time


on-ta


warning


disabled


adolescent


three


types


learning


with


activity


an arithmetic


examined.


pretest


as covariate


three


group


, was analyzed


through


-way


analy


covariance


(ANCOVA)


research


used


Bon-


ferroni


procedure


post


determine


pairs


groups


were


different.


Alpha


at .05.


arithmeti


performance


mea-


sure


number


used


as th


unit


f analy


cooperative


games


competitive


game


traditional


work


heet


con-


edition.


other word


each


individual


score


on the


postt


used


to comput


means


for each


condition.


Time


on-task


ervations


were


analyzed


through ANCOVA


Johnson


eyman


technique.


correlation


between


arithmeti


scores


on-ta


behavior were


anal


using


earson


produ


-momen t


error


anal


con-


ducted


on each


student


pretest


order


to pinpoint


specific


type


errors


sent


or her


arithmeti


performance.


Sn fnrivrm2-f an


hal nor!


visa I .J I3 I.r a


*v.2 4 nor


t Phovh


r A I a a


ill IIII


1 I I|


1 nc-


II








evidenced


multiplication


answer was


uped


number


incorrect


because


f the


student


second


spec


irrorr


that


rsgrois


trter


not 2d


ded.


purpose


error


analysis


tudy wa


to analyze


type


errors


made


student


included


study,


analy


pinpoint


which


pec i fi c


error


patterns


remediate


identified


operational


area


each


student.


160


; t t~ rr,








Table


Specific


Error


Patterns


Response:


I
68
+ 8
Ibb


73
+ 9


Error


Pattern


When


number


(the

-147


Response:


tens


column


is added


lower


addend


added,
numeral


added


in the


ngle
ten


-digit
s column


twice)


42'3
-366
167


Error


Pattern


When


regrouping


appropriate


amount


required
is not s


more
ubtra


than


once,
from th


column


borrowed


from


second


regrouping.


Response:


Error


Pattern


regrouped


number


is not


added.


Response:


21
6/1206
1200
6
6


Error


Pattern


zero


quotient


omitted.


(Adapted


from Mercer


& Mercer,


1981)


x 9
274


x 6
248














CHAPTER


Thirty


cents


ixth


enrol 1ed


through


exceptional


eighth


student


grade


learning


education


(ESE)


disabled


math


adol es-


classes


public


mi ddl e


school


participated


tudy


purpo


e of


tudy was


investigate


effectiveness


operative


competitive


games


with


learning


abled


adolescents


on arithmetic


between


performance


arithmetic


on-task


performance


time


behavior.


on-ta


relation

learning


abled


adole


scent


three


types


learning


activities


examined.


Data


control


were


tati


analyzed


tically


using


an analysis


initial


covariance


difference


(ANCOVA)


subject


which


might


have


confounded


differences


among


three


groups


subjects.


Descriptive


data


three


groups


provided


en dix


chapter


divided


into


sections


which


correspond


with


null


hypoth


eses


ithmeti


Performance


Null


hypothesis


number one


states


that


there


e no differences









participate


in cooperative


games,


competi ti ve


games,


traditional


work


heet


learning


activities.


analysis


f covariance


(ANCOVA)


used


answer


question,


after


testing


assumption


that


within


group


regres


lopes


equal


across


treat-


ment


level


covari ate


taken


into


consider


tion


arithmetic


prete


interaction


term


, prete


t with


group)


found


significant,


parallel


therefore,


adju


umed


unadju


that


means


lopes


standard


were


deviations


each


group


area


are


presented


Table


groups


were


com-


posed


students


analysis


covariance


summary


table


presented


Table


val ue


ignifi cant


level,


which


means


treatments


equally


effective


remediating


arithmeti c


disabilities.


ignifi


difference


among


groups wa
was used,


followed


controlling


with

for e


post


rror


hoc

rate


tests.


family,


Bonferroni


which


procedure


setting


group


compare


sons


level


ignifi


chance


.05)


Keppel


(198


Kirk


(1968)


state


that


generally not


recommended


tati


tician


that


researcher


utilize


compare son


contrast


edure


Squares


Difference


rather


a per


family


procedure


, Bonferroni)


Bonferroni


yiel ded


significant


di fferenc


means


cooperate


games


group


traditional


worksheet


group.


subjects


receive


traditional


worksheets


demon


treated


higher


arithmetic p


e.








Table


Means


Standard


Deviations


Arithmetic


rformance


Type
ing


Learn-


Activity


Pretest
7x


Posttest
X


Standard
Deviation


Cooperati
Games


(unadjusted)


8.74


Competitive
Games


(adjust
(unadju


8.56


ed)
sted)


Traditional


Work


Total


(adjusted)
(unadjusted)


heets


Group


Table


ANCOVA


summary


Table


Source DF Sum of Squares F


Pretest 1 788.833 39.86*

Group 2 220.608 5.57*

Error 32 633.25








subjects


participated


in the


cooperative


games


group


7.08)


those


participated


competitive


games


group


= 42


.64)


at .05


. Hovever


probability that


difference


occurred


chance


between


ravl~rrn


cooperative


4-.,


3f
i^.. -.


competitive


n-t-" i
r. te -
d V r


group


4C he v'n '


.0549


er~4~ -n-~fic2


favor


tdif


eronce


mean:


* 4


2 *i-"t at'; r


*; 1 ;


group


.64)


those


received


traditional


work


heet


= 43


highest


possible


score


pretest


post-


test


was 50.


Behavior


Null


hypothe


number


two states


that


there


are no differences


amount


time


on-task


among


learning


disabled


adole


scents


participate


cooperative


game


, competitive


game


tradi


tional


work


heet


learning


activities


Data


on on-t


behavior wa


collected


during


treatment


phase.


answer


question,


researcher


used


ANCOVA


procedure,


with


arithmetic


pretest


as the


covariate


lope


assumption


on-ta


behavior


that


three


within

groups


group

on the


regression

pretest are


equal


was tested


found


significant.


Because


relation


between


on-t


behavior


prete


was not


same


each


group,


ANCOVA


could


adjust


on-t


behavior


percentages


three


groups


based


on their


pretest


scores.


number of


aI h iorte


mo~rnc


t nrl2rrl


*fl I. -I **~~ I %~


nnt+tfr


h, h \riny r


n!niifrc


f~~ ~I S


|I I


c


. .


.


. ... .


ri r








test


overall


treatment


effect,


also


indicated


that


there


were


differential


treatment


effects


relation


scores


on the


pretest.


overall


group


interaction


presented


Figure


Resul t


indicate


that


subjects


with


pretest


scores


participated


cooperative


games


show


a higher


percent Ltge


task


behavior


than


subjects


higher


pretest


scores.


important


note


that


part


line


drawn


Figure


cooperative


group was


extrapolated


because


there were no


pretest


scores


below


for thi


group


Thus,


subsequent


interpretations


ability


students


in the


cooperative


group


were


based


on that


extrapolation.


appear


no difference


predicted


percentage


on-ta


behavior


subjects


participated


in competitive


game


whether


work


heet


their


prete


group,


scores


it appears


were

that


low or


when


high.


their


pretest


the tr

scores


additional


were


their


on-ta


behavior wa


low.


And,


as their


pretest


scores


increased


their on


-task


behavior


increased


Table


Mean


Standard


Deviations


Behavior


Type


Learning


Activity


Standard


Deviation


Cooperative

Competitive


Games


Game


.7250


.9092


0.11

0.04









Table


ANCOVA


ummary


Table


ource


Squares


Prete

Group


0.013


Interaction


0.057


Error


0.153


Johnson


-Neyman


technique


employed


establ i


region


significance


interaction


(Kerl singer


Pedhazur


, 197


technique


indicates


high


(and


low)


pretest


scores


should


order


treatment


group mean


significantly


different


on on


-task


behavior.


When


comparing


cooperative


game


group with


competiti tive


games


group


Figure


results


indicate


that


tudi* nt
wf -* -*


with


pret


scores


lower than


(which


extra -


polated


region)


cooperative


group


were


more


on-ta


than


student


with


with


pretest


lower

scores


scores

higher


competitive


than


games


group.


cooperative


group


students

p were


significantly


on-task


than


students


with


higher


scores


competitive


games


group.


null


hypothes i


was rejected


.57*





























































O4-~
U,
cci
5-0
o 4)4)
EL
4)
>>taGi
*~ *r 0 *r
CUwwSOww
L4J4-)Zr 2
0. m
020)C.C4Jr
001-tUG) OS-
(~,c~,I-s~ I-c

ii a 12 ii II


0. 00
0E0~
COL.
Co I-


0

ot~
04
ci

CJu
En
it.-
044-h
U)
4)
tO4-~
cq.4w
L
trio-
('4









results


comparison


cooperative


games


group


with


traditional


worksheet


group


Figure


indicate


that


students


with


prete


scores


lower


than


(which


extrapolated


region)


cooperative


game


group were


more


on-task


Zhan


students


wi Li ]


Ower


ill Gibe


used


*~3' k


students


witn


pre Lest


scores


nigher


than


Looprid -


tive


games


group


were


significantly


on-task


than


student


with


higher


scores


traditional


work


heet


group.


null


hypothesis


wa s rejected


for this


compare son.


When


comparing


competitive


games


group


with


traditional


work


heet


group


Figure


there was no


difference


point


ability


on the


pretest


hown


in the


Figure.


It was


concluded


there were


no s


significant


differences


between


competitive


games


group


traditional


worksheet


group


. The


null


hypothes


accepted


compare


son.


Mea n


standard


deviation


for the


arithmetic


pretest


presented


Table


Results


indicate


that when


ability


much


lower


than


sample


average


on the


arithmetic


pretest


8.83,


cooperative


games


group


significantly


better


than


competitive game


group (Pretes


score


.91)


on on-task


behavior


significantly


better


than


traditional


worksheet


group


(Prete


score


student


with


ability


level


cl ose


or higher


than


average


competitive


games


-raC~


2





























04-



'I,









------ -- a -


en-
.0


4-3
'out

4-3
tnai
CJL
a-


C
U,
Ca,
tad~h
GIG)
SI-
a-


GIG,>
---- ----- ---- ------ -------


(a
C
4-C


Ow
.rC
I,.


0*'


IUwSOtfl Wi
q3ws>O u--I
0. 0.v- 'U ~ 0
00'UGJW
~ i*
di
*0
S I
I
Os. '4-
00 I
tif~ a


U


A


















































---------
















/
4,
--- n ---


----------


C-
0
0



























4-
--- -------------- -------------- a














U, 03
'U U
4-fl- C
WI 'U
Wc U C
.c0 *1~ 04-i
In 4- U,
---------------- ~ 4- a --
L 0C 'U
('4




'0 0arw


EL.
03 'U'
0.
Ow
L4-)
COW
S
04.J
0I-


0
rr~

Ia~0J



('4
4~2
NW
4~)
03
to'-

LC)
N


('4

(Y,


E-

+u> A
S. Eo


*I


Il S


*I









significantly more


on-task


than


cooperative


game


group


(Pretest


score


28.06)


There was


no s


significant


difference


on-ta


behavior


between


competitive


games


group


traditional


worksheet


group


observed


arithmetic


pretest


scores.


Table


Means


standard


Deviation


Ari thmeti c


Pretest


Type of Learning Activity 7 Standard Deviations


Cooperative 33.75 2.86
Games

Competitive 24.42 6.10
Games

Traditional 28.33 6.85
Worksheets

Total Group 28.83 6.64


Arithmeti c


Performance


Task


Behavior


Null


hypothesis


number


three


states


that


there


no relationship


between


arithmetic


performance


time


on-task


learning


disabled


adolescent


traditional


participate

worksheet l


cooperative


earning


games,


activities.


compete ti ve


Correl ation


games,
between
























































C
04-)
In
Cci
(04-i
ala)
Es-
a-


IIH II


E r
O s-


Lfl
In

4.)
S
I-
-o
C
z
0
Co
Sb-
a.'
0.

di
4-)
-o
cdi
'us-
0
LflCJ


a,
U,>
*e-L.
di
.4~3 tfl


a,
~L.
C"0
U
rcn
4J
U,
too)

C)
LflS~
~ C-


rW


a;
LW
a)
tn.=
C4-~
0
010
C)
s-SC







relation


between


arithmetic


performance


and on-ta


behavior


subjects


.05)


accounting


only


one percent


erved


variance


arithmeti c


performance


posttest.


null


hypothe


overall


group


accepted.


There


ne's


significant


relation


between


arithmeti c


performance


on-ta


be hvi or


correlation


observed


subjects


participated


total


cooperative


group


games


-.07,


negative


.05)


lower


accounting


than


only


that


.005


percent


There


observed


was no relationship


behavior


learning


variance


between


abled


null


arithmetic


adolescent


hypothe


rejected


performance


participated


on-task


com-


petitive


ject


games


received


.09,


.05).


traditional


work


corre


heet


action


observed


high


.05)


which


account


high


percent


correlation


between


arithmetic


erved


variance.


performance


, there


on-ta


behavior


subjects


received


traditional


work


heets.


null


hypothe


rejected


traditional


worksheet


group


Results


indicate


formance


that


on-ta


relationship


behavior wa


between


ignigi


arithmetic

cant only


per-

for


traditional


worksheet


group


There


no relationship


between


these


variables


either


cooperative


games


group


or the


competitive


games


group.









Table


Correlation


Between


Arithmetic
k Behavior


Performance


Type of Learning Activity N r


Cooperative

Competitive


a -^


Games


Traditional


Worksheets


.68*


Overall 1


Group


Specific


Error


Pattern


Analy


specific


error


pattern


analysis


conducted


on subject


pretest


ostt


ests


typical


error


pattern


present


subject


indicate


' arithmetic


that


performance


percent


presented


student


Tabl e


subtracted


results


malIer


number from the


larger


number without


regard


placement


f the


number


When


regrouping


required


more


than


once,


percent


student


borrowed


ubtract


and/or


appropriate


regrouping when


amount


zeros


from the


were


col umn


involved.


More


than


one arithmetic


operation was


performed


on a


given


problem


percent


students.


When


there


were


two or more multi










Table


TYPICAL


ERROR


PATTERNS


PLAYED


TUDY


Response:


- 486


- 489


Error


Pattern:


smaller


number


number without


upper
lower


number
number


subtracted


regard for
r (minuend)


r


from


placement


ubtracted


larger
number


from


ubtrahend)


Response:


4007


- 2679
1,438


Error


Pattern


When


regrouping


appropriate


column
when z


amount


borrowed


eros


required


more


than


ubtracted
and/or 3r


once,
from t


regrouping


involved.


Response:


+281
625


-427
937


x 4
158


-243
605


Error


Pattern


Cross
areas


operations


performed


across


arithmetic


Response:


1505


1040


Error


Pattern


Cross


multiplies


Response:


Siz


x553


1116


m


..,..,.









unuary


analysis


covariance


(ANCOVA)


Bonferroni


post


procedure


used


test


following


null


hypothesi


There


no difference


arithmetic


scores


among


learning


disabled


adolescents


parti


ipated


cooperative


ames


competitive


games,


and -traditional


worksheet


learning


activities.


null


hypothesis


rejected.


significant


statistical


difference


existed


between


cooperative


games


group


tra-


ditional


work


heet


group,


favoring


traditional


worksheet


group


level


significance.


While


no s


significant


statistical


result


were


indicated


between


cooperative


games


group


competitive


games


group,


there


seems


predicted


direction


differences


favor


competitive


games


group.


si gn i


ficant


statistical


difference


existed


between


competitive


games


group


traditional


work


heet


group.


analysis


technique


covariance


used


(ANCOVA)


following


Johnson


null


-Neyman


hypoth


There


no difference


amount


f time


on-task


among


learning


disabled


dole


scents


participated


cooperative


games,


Cuiii~Zt


i. ive


42'


ydi~htL,


sheet


on -ta c!'


compa


sons


between


groups


Ilnu~ L.


cdUL UU


tII tC


a I


data


extrapolated


using


Johnson-Neyman


technique.


Pociil tc


indirmao


-C


c n m aF- /^


*m*l' etir ri


tliffo~nraQ -in tho


~ mn i ent








group.

lower


The d

ability


i fference


students,


favored

and co


cooperative


mpetitive


games


game


group


higher


ability


students.


null


hypothesis


rejected


this


comparison.


There


significant


tati


tical


difference


amount


time


ci-task


tw~r,


cooper


cmrn~


traditional


work


yt wui.


-I


,,r ~


a


v-tn-., t


Qrrmes


lower


ability


student


traditional


work


heet


group


higher


ability


students.


null


hypothes i


rejected


compare son.


Further,


results


indicate


that


there


significant.


tati


tical


difference


amount


time


spent


on-task


between


competitive


games


group


traditional


work


heet


group.


null


hypothe


accepted


this


comparison.


Pearson


product


-moment


correlation


analysis


used


test


following


null


hypothesis:


There


no relationship


between


arithmeti c


performance


time


on-task


learning


disabled


dole


cents


participated


cooperative


games,


competitive


games,


traditional


work


heets.


There


no s


significant


stati


tical


relationship


between


-arithmetic


performance


on-task


behavior


overall


group.


null


hypothesis


overall


group


accepted.


There


nificant


tati stical


relation


between


arithmeti c


performance


on-task


behavior


traditional


work


heet


group.


nunl


hypothesis s


rejected


traditional


worksheet


group.


spsn


ro'JF











CHAPTER


LIMITATIONS


IMPLICATION


CONCLUSIONS


This


chapter


c~rIrSses?


findings


of this


inves


tigdtion.


Specifically


finding


are d


scusse


term


limitation


implication


conclu


sions.


Learning


abled


(LD)


adolescent


frequently manife


academic


ability


arithmeti c


kill


They


often


hide


behind


rote


hallow


ensure


experiences


ability


comp


arithmetical


their


(Bartel


1978)


computation


consumer


secondary


needs


level


which


everyday


teacher


needed


living


often


utilizes


teaching


methods


material


that


are not


appropriate


are not


sens


itiv


to the


individual


need


hese


students


(Beatti


1981


Wallace


McLoughl in,


1979).


there


are compara-


fewer


research


intervention


efforts


remediating


arithm


defi


than


other


academic


areas


science


, music,


(Bartel,


1978)


sens


itive


remediating


individualized


arithmetic


deficit


teaching


learning


technique


abled


esse


adol


ntial


escents


possible


strategy availablel


teaching


adolescent


use o


game


(Beattie,


1981


cer,


1979)


A close


examination


literature


reveals


little


information


on the


use of


instructional







game


as a


technique


remediate


arithmetic


deficits


learning


disabled


adolescents.


present


study


focu


on the


possible


arithmeti

learning


performance


disabled


on-ta


adolescents


using


behavior differences

cooperative games,


between

competitive


game


traditional


worksheet


learning


activities


addition,


tudy wa


concerned


with


ible


relationship


between


arithmetic


performance


on-ta


behavior.


Twelve


subjects


were


assigned


cooperative


game


group,


competitive


games


group,


traditional


worksheet


group


. An


arithme-


ttest


admini


tered


to determine


difference


arithmetic


performance


cooperative


game,


competitive


game,


traditional


work


heet


groups


Additional


information


obtained


quantifying


actual


on-task


behaviors


displayed


subjects


each


three


learning


activities.


Correlational


studied


were


conducted


determine


potential


relationship


between


arithmetic


performance


on-task


behavior


Limitation


Several


p055


ible


limitation


Exceptional


student


educa-


tion


(ESE)


teachers


were


willing


trained


implement


tudy


as planned,


because


each


them taught


students


varying


exce


ptionalities


.e., emotionally


handicapped,


varying


academic


subjects


Conducting


treatments


situa-


tion,


according


teachers,


would


have


caused


ssroom manage-







teacher


trained


researcher


come


into


their


ass-


rooms


work


with


group


Moreover


, they


helped


researcher


obtain


separate


space


their


assrooms


when


necessa


There


was a


limited


number


(not


more


than


eligible


subjects


attending


mathematics


asses


period


, thereby


limiting


amount


random a


ssianment


that


could


have


limited


researcher


number


changing


subject


period


procedure


resulted


competitive


game


group


as outlined


Johnson


John son


tudie


.e., rotating


1st,


place


winner


in each


ster


following


day;


Appendi


result


assignment


procedure,


with


so few


student


period


means


groups


grouping


on the


student


screening


with


device


similar math


pretestt)


ability


were


nificantly


different


from


beginning


tudy.


Consequently


cause


researcher


change


plans


data


analy


from an


analysis


f variance


(ANOVA)


to analy


covariance


(ANCOVA)


Analysis


covariance


tically


control


initial


differences


student


which


might


have


been


present


which


might


have


confounded


difference


between


treatments.


subject


' tardiness


absenteeism coul d


control lled.


four


cooperative


group


there


seemed


to be


little


"goofing


haring


tutoring


kill


researcher


trained


facilitated


their


into


behavior


consideration


students


when


back


interpreting


on-ta


result


should


for the


taken


cooperative







those


observed


group.


Each


student


accus


tomed


mediation


traditional


work


heet


technique.


usual


response


mode


precluded


traction


problem


sol ving


errors


that


might


affected


other


respon


ways


that


were


newer


tudent


Giv en


these


1 imitation


results


tudy


have


sever?


important


implications


both


t hem-


practice.


Implication


Arithmeti c


Performance


finding


that


subject


traditional


work


heet


group


demonstrated


higher


arithmetic


performance


than


those


participated


cooperative


games


group


noteworthy.


discussion


finding


concerning


goal


(c) c

Goal


arithmeti c


structures


: autia


performance


cognitive


interpretation


structures


outcome


arithmetic


cognitive outcomes.


presented


, (b)


term


type


performance


Previous


results.


research


findings


have


been


inconsi


tent


as to


whether


cooperative,


competi-


tive,


or individual


case,


traditional


work


heet-


control


group)


goal


structure


conducive


achievement.


Johnson


Johnson


(1975)


point


some


specific


cognitive


outcomes


teachers


should


promote


influence


through


instruction


includes


mastery


basic


fact


, concepts,


principles


kill


, (b)


cooperative


problem-solving


kill


needed


develop


revi


knowledge,


which


also


essential


retention,








taking


risks


solving


problems,


students


' identifying


their


abilities


applying


them


problem


solving


situation


quantity


peed


work


on s


imple


drill


activity


students


' ability


take


perspective


other


dividual


within


situation,


an important


prerequi


development


f social


adaptability,


communication


ability


kill


, empathy


sympathy,


free


oral


judgment


based


upon


mutual


dependence


stice.


Table


presents


Johnson


Johnson


suiimnary


relation


between


goal


structures


cognitive


outcomes


instruction.


John


sons.


point


that


research


indicate


type


cognitive


more


complex


outcomes


facilitated


ones


problem-


cooperative


olving


goal


structures


ability)


type


cognitive


outcome


facilitated


competitive


goal


structures


peed


quantity


on s


simple


drill


activity


which


requires


little


stance


from


other


person


And,


type


cognitive


instructional


objectives


facilitated


individual


goal


structures


impl


, organizing


material).


Johnson


Johnson


summary


Table


suggest


that


tudy


promoted


probl em-sol ving


ability


Although


probl em-sol vi ng


r-'rt -j


acilitated


ooperativ


Lruccure


r


1 fll


, r


PtA'j


facilitated


compete ti ve


individual i


(traditional


work-


heet


goal


structures.


Some


poss


reasons


individualisti


a ^u n


5:\


i


r,


;














































































0er


a.
C .
OC
'no
Cr
-c4J
015

.4-

0

*~0

'I
*
C
an-a


U,
r0)

=0.

(Jo
mc
4-fl-
S.-
44-os
0


Cn


45








ditional


student


worksheet


move


into


through


arithmeti


curriculum


material


own pace


permitted


level


ability


contrary


cooperative


games


involved


student


directing


or influencing


another


pace.


Al though


students


Vulc~


*d~ -


'--I--


ons


C C I


mriih3


condition


solved


problems


*t .


paces


which


from their


have


peer


caused


either


students


quickly


receive


or too


tutorial


lowly


grasp


instruction


clear


under


standing


process


invol ved.


Another


reason


individualistic


was better


than


cooperative


that


work


heet


allowed


student


work


alone


without


strac-


tions.


contrary


cooperative


games


allowed


for much


traction


interruptions


from


peers.


Third


students


work


habits


have


been


influenced


by who


was perceived


major


resource


assi


tance


support


reinforcement


in each


goal


structure.


individual i


goal


structure


(traditional


work


heet),


teacher


was the


major


resource


student


in the


cooperative


goal


structure


(games)


other


student


were


perceived


major


resource


support.


assumption


that


student


will


work


on their


own with


little


or no


assistance


from the


teacher


should


made.


reality


many


ents


help,


approval


intera


4..


from


gardl


independent


material


believed


(Johnson


Johnson


, 1975)


a~~~r I.


L1 ii L3 i I


r.


R


r


1








students


are in


instructional


situations


good


portion


their


instructional


time.


suggests


that


because


traditional


work


heet


group


accus


tomed


to thi


form


instruction


have


influenced


their


performance.


s tL:dents


work


I -


Pma red
*iI


rece


TII"oIE


prac


Lica on t


than


subject


participated


cooperative


games.


While


cooperative


work-


heet


group


received


work


on their


individual


level


students


with


work


heet


have


to alternate


working


problems


with


peer


thereby


decreasing


amount


problems


that


could


olved


sess


ion.


cooperative


group


alternated


tutoring


checking


each other


problems.


data


from thi


tudy


indicate


that


arithmeti c


performance


students


competitive


games


group


significantly


different


from those


received


traditional


work


heets.


finding


suggests


that


classroom


teacher


choice


remediating


arithmetic


deficits


heet


goal


adole


Johnson


structure


provide


cents


Johnson


competitive


(1975)


appropriate


games


pointed


practice


or traditional


that


work-


competitive


some


kill


learned


an individual


or cooperative


setting,


"game"


format


often


used


task


include


reading,


language


games,


rr~at ii


acts


Ul:ati


speed)


tati


tical


i gni fi cancer


found


between


means


cooperative


competitive


game


groups.


There


appear


, however,


hePtc:








adol


escents


than


cooperative


games.


other


word


this


tudy


was replicated


there


poss


ibility


that


with


longer


treat-


ment


a larger


sampl e


competitive


group


might


score


significantly


better


than


cooperative


group.


prediction


s~ilppcr


that


ct!dr!


e9te


cooperate. v


games


group


-oul


CGc)s


material


assigned.


Also


, students


concern


tutoring


another


student


in the


cooperative


game


group


was sometimes


played


Further,


student


goofing


cooperative


game


group,


other


students


became


situation


annoyed


, the


sometimes


teacher


refu


facilitated


play.


student


each


'behavior;


these


however


other


students


houl d


have


been


perceived


as the


major


resource


assistance,


Another


support


reinforcement


reason


prediction


(Johnson


that


John


competi ti ve


, 1975)


game


group


better


than


cooperative


game


group


that


students


participating


cooperative


games


were


able


complete


as many


arithmetic


problem


as s


student


participating


competitive


games.


students


playing


competitive


game


spent more


time


sol ving


arithmeti c


problem


than


cooperative


games


group


primary


reason


student


completing


as much


work


cooperative


games


group


was because


amount


time


took


udent


to tutor


each
Qar^
L..jh\ b* a


ot har'


teacher may not


need


teach


competitive


kill


prior


using


competitive


game


ssroom,once


competition


S '' 7rrt


id: rJ








level


compare


ability


skill


knowledge with


peers,


perceive


teacher


as the


primary


resource


help,


clarification,


prai


warded


, (d)


enjoy


individually


activity


(Johnson


(win


Johnson


or 1


ose),


, 1975).


& k..


envop


In ncrnn


that


s ituational


factor,


such 8


as Lhe


F ,


MA


f the


outc


:e~S


variou


compare


sons


between


different


goal


structures,


been


given


little


attention


John


sons


(Cotton


& Cook


, 1982)


Also,


another


concern


that


Johnson


, Maruyama,


Johnson,


Nelson,


Skon


(1982)


major


result


that


cooperation


superior


other


goal


structures


promoting


achievement


indicates


that


most


vestigators


have


elected


type


task


that


favor


cooperation


(McGlynn,


1982).


A review of


tudie


on the


relative


effect


cooperative,

achievement o


competitive,


variety


and indi

f school


V


. I .-,


laualis

related


goal


structures

presented


Table


other


detail


about


these


studies


Chapter


most


striking


finding


consi


tent


superiority of


coopera-


tion


on problem-solving


tasks.


Johnson


studiede


reviewed


indicate


that


problem-


solving


more


complex


task


than


either


peed


quantity


on s


imple


drill


or s


activities


impl


which


task


requires


organic


little


tance


materi


from other


Generally


persons,


students


have


been


exposed


the material


used


problem


-solving


task


or the


difficulty


level


content


increase


help


student


revise


Tt~i~rr


T3"ps














U,
in
0)
0=
>0)
at->
0'4-)
rU
0)0)
4-
Lii


(flu'
U,
4-)I~


1-~
c00
I-
0)

0

030

s-u,
-C
I~4.-
0)0
-C
ml-)
4-03
or
info


(4-


0)4-i
=

(4.-0)
0>
0)


arcs
~=


.0
003
S-u'
0-u)
di
.00
(no-
OS a
.0
~0th
-o
0.5
4-,.

oro
.9-mo
-o
4)
0)-c
=0)
0
C
.~03C
u)'4~)030)
04)031-
Jr.0 0
U) 5- 4-
~~e33-o0)
(no 0.0
0rO~C
4-) >tO U)
03
3 S-4-V)4-~
Who c
a,- ,- r- 0
>r--ov- 2
din- 03cc
1-5-4-) v-rn
I-eu, 0
I.e
~-r in in
v-4J
1-000)0)
tJ
0-
30
I-.--.


$ a
0303 a'-
r~ Win
0-0.4-)
220)03
0 0'-4-'
Uu~0-0i
Eu-
40=00.
tflrUE
0
*~ro 0 U
0)4-)
0
u-ore w
at- Q7 I.- in S..
wS-3
0- 0U
0)0)0) War
C S.- (/) 5- 0.
0
Li, *O~O
~ in.C O4~)
Cl) 0.003
0U)O)
4040 0 0)
030)4-)
303C 0)40
W.C~v- in o-
*r1fl01.fl
00
031- W~O C
S-0LdiC.J0
'3 1- 2
I- .4.) at-
rOtfl(flO
at- 3Q) ~QJ4J
L4-)303mn
-o OS-cUu
5-0)
0)03
C> 0) 0)0.C
.,-I-.c0. 0)
004-J 0344
0> 40CC
03c>)U)rW
* a
)m.. r~ ~ ~4 C '..


0300
3 4-)
4-).r 0-
oaE
*'- 0
4-'0 U
woo
23
0)04)
I-
~0~OV
00)0)
S-I>>
0.r-
00
s-cc
o I"4
4-'
In in
os-a)
9-4 Wv-
4-00
001-
030..
cfl4-~
0) 0)
-I-
0-C 40
0+)
O '4-
>,h0
C-c
03 0)

a,- 3- 0
0~,- in
0
0)1-a..
1-0..
di flu)
3V ~c
0mb
mw ar
.s P
... "~Jr-'


-
.cr
40r
sb-tn
tI~ W4~~
0-OS-
1-0
-COD-
C-,
disco,
40>
a .3.-
wco~
2"-
03 03
r~O 1-
.0030)
01-3
s-c
0e.0 Li2
ELI)
Cc
a
U0)>~
CflL.
o 0
Z04-'
O4-~ in
0)
in (hr
400
s-s-U
o 0.0)
0
S-u-
0)001-
03
a'- u-
OVO r. I.e
0030
1.. 2
waco 0
3
(fl-coo
3$..


in
(flu,
01-
V0
I0
C'S-
u-C)
SO
rU)
Er'


U
4-)
U)
cUd).-
.9~
404-'V
0 r
1-4-'>
030"-
0- 020
OEC
a a
































0) I- 0) tnc
a- 0 C V *r ~r-
01 00 0V.C (OW
CU) w0)r-
0C04-'r-UCWrr--01
*r"r4Jr 0)Cr.C 3 0)C
s-c 4JC~.C4 CEO
4-' VWEO 4~) colOr
010) ar Or *W*,- S..
4- C4-) 0) 1.4-~ 3'~r- 5-4'
00r0L4-) (60)4-)
I- C CU,4JC 03
OWS.lO~4-E
CO 04-s 4-'ru- On- 00
OC4'uO0.4-'0IaS. in
cc..cwac
S-tflOn--4'0004--C 00)
I-ZO n-COn-000.C
o 0305-5- CS-+)
cs. 00)400) 40 03
00100w a CE 400
cn-r-03 0)0) VwOO1EUC
U)Iflfl0) u-.Cr-WCLsCCO
(12 O)4-)0rr4-r+J
cnEeU a(0C -n a
010 104-WrEtflWOO
4'0CU) r0r40000)cfl.C
4'
01 0.24' 0) OP-'01
COO) 0 C4-V COOW
C 0)1- 0)-i- O*r- 0 OCr S..
C4-)w0i0)a-C ,-"r'4'4-0
O CS-0LC>1O)S-
tflt4-n-..C-r~r- 10 Or- C 4'V 4'
m004~~Ocn0J.r~U)eU CCV
(ii 4' cflr-4.~Zn-4-00)0)
s-cccwo 1001-0 V4-~
* 0 0 0C aW+~-r4' *n- C
.CC> CE
0(12 W400W3O0>~0
*r-LEO14-..C
e-'wo 04'vLaC4Jonn
0>1-0) 00 mEuZ4'
a O)S-U)'4-VO) as-
Li) itS "S 3 r a-' o 2
3 0 thOr- C.C 2 0 S-.C 1- 10
I-'--CLO U 0~-44' (ha- 04' 0.3


to
I I 0 5
cn.~e 0 0)
S-omeac a
SW Eu
4' .CGIO
VUOOVr
4~) ~ C ~ 0.


0) U)
-CV
41)0 .
14~U) C
00-u-
N
C U)
0
40 0
0)
S-.W
01-4-)
0.00
Eu-U
00
000
4-)
~CVV
in C CV
010*00)
4.) 40
C
010 Wa-
Cr NO)
*,- 4-) *i- S.-
4'0W
5-> tO
os- as
(6010)0)
U)Or
I~a0 0.0
UO.CO
Ins-
COO) 0.
*I-


0
00W-co
0)0
0. 0-03
V
0.C4-~ Sn.' C
-I-)
C 034-~0
Ot,)s~0w a
tao
U) w c
0) 0 40 U) 0 (6
S-EOO)E*r0
Z 0.C C 0341)4'
0)11240wr- EU
(12.0
(4- 0) U) Ou-r
0.24~1
o Z.C 04-i
U) 0)4-i )C 0 0
S.. r
'4-3uV00
04' 0)0
>004-) 01-5-
S-..C 3,-r.r...C
Eu CO.'
es-a
W0G)V0) a-
in+' th+~r 0
00) 50
r 0)0 0.e.o~C
0)4-Cr- 04-i
C *e-.0S-4-)r


> OC .c S. LS .0
-r- (0',- 1 *-- 0 0 i
>.3 to#*-OV XN4'0
0C-10) XCL-n-r4'O)Wt0"
-' .-( Wr 00.1.N- -.
















In
Li)
U)
>0)

t04-)
0)0)
4-


VV IC.40
0~0 r4a40 U
tO~r- OttO 0)
SC to
0) -One
i-S-COO) 0)
V 0) (OV
r 0e- S~4-) Sn
Er-C) 0)11)0)


4o 14 -o -
A A A A
* S *
0.0.0 -a0
0000
0000
0000
a *0 0a a0
e* e* *S am
Ql. Q-. CL. Q-.
AAAA


0000
A A A A



0000
0000
0.. 0 0.. 0.


SA


O O
O O
00


"-n
V
C

A
S
a
2
0
0
A

a
0
0
C-)



S
win
(040
*r C4- Xi-
4~) 050 0) (5

E~00.S-
0)400)50)
4-' 00t5>,
0) Em
-o
5-0)
(U
4- EOO
a0O) too
C~C 0)
S- >)*r O~O)
.4w) CV .C to
wmC0,-C
2 rS~ 0
o >)4~C
wan .4-) .4-)
0) C t0r
V.4-' 10 WV
4-Ww CL.C
0'r30)30
V r4JQ
O)=4-~ U) (0
C4r-0)ZG)
r(OOV 1.-U)
C 0)

10r u- 4-'
U) ~fl4..i D..V
r .r 5
o Cr Or-
Ww~flCeU
(U
40W>)E>O
Sn 5-
C 0.4-) S.. tO
o 0)4- C
402 Ow
V 000)4-">
WCWC
0 O)0(fl0~
=4-)
UrW 0~ Sn U)
OCeC Worn
L ~-L4-~


A A


Q.OO
00
0 0
0 0


a'

C,*
4J- C
f00
E -)
0
0 o


U)
U
C
0
E
5-
0
4->)
S-a,
0)0)
0) 0-4-)
0 0
Cr-S->)
00400~
E>tnw
5.-U) 4-)
Ow14- to
4-5-05-
a'-)
0) U)C U)
0~1-0
r-(fl400
r0
toONto
0WrU1
0)05-0)

400)0)
WCwS.-
W04J0
Sn 0-0 3
LLLOOC


UI)


0) ~
Sow
t0=0
U) n- C
0
toE
20)5.-
0)5-0
r-
flit's-U)
000)0
LW0.C
2
0)04-' 5.-
rI- 0)4-
C S-Sn
0 S-U)
to *00-
0~ U-'
Wa)
S-r--S-u~
IO~WL
rr4fl 0
0'-'E S-
40 C~UJ
(00
U) (/)
0~0
cCoe


OC
0
0)0)
CC

400
ton
Sj-n
to
CC
00
ow
C
too

U)
o~0
C
.rC)
>2
'-0
ow
to'-
I
Sin
WE
w-*0)
.0r
0-n
5.0
0-Sw-
a.
I-
10>)
-as-
5-0
0)4-)
"'U,


U)
U)
(CU)
Vr Sn
COO)
V
0)0
0)CS-
9~ Sf- ai
-Os
V 5-4-'
r 0 U)


*r- .
0E
CO
-o












U)
In
0)
Wc
>0)
*1~>

rU
0)0
'4-























U)
to
0
I-




























en
40
U
0)
.0
(I)



a


*r- *p s *u-"
CCC

II A A
*S

000
000
0 03 0


(0= S.-
a Sc 0)0 I 03340
0400)0) 0 'n.r->~OCScWC4J
30.40> 0 Iw+ir-OlwUCOJU)
40Wo~'- '0)CUUr 0 2
0001W OLW0'4--OWWC"0'V
WC.r 0) *U0J(flL0W40.COIC0)
ScO"0Ou 0 3
40004-'C403Wt0 wow in
(I) 1- 031-0)
0)0.0400 C0 *0 0,-4 00 ~ U
UU..C CO. C4J0JrO 0 OC
C04-'0)0W W0U)S-U4-C400)
00) ..C tooL- S..
4040 44 400 en We-.C 1-4-) 0) in
C 0) CErLL0v-0~W (#20)
WOucWo'r- m 3O~- vowS.-
U)40CrU0 1-r .CL
0) COVOOk *-30) *Z
0)fl40V0) 0) 0JU)~C 40w 0 0
C0d1-4-~r0W4J4-'0Weu4-)W4-)0)0)
r3iOCC*e-C00.0ScEC4-' S-S
103Wr>OEO)5040 0)C.C0)
U'-" W0W0~3X
00)0) *r-'V4->~C CSCV~
OS-Or"r4040Z0totO
CS-404-~O3mfl 000 tfl40C40
00) 0014-3 *rU)4- 00303
40W-U)WCZC0WL4000 0)
01(00003w *r.CWC
CS a. r-40wu40400)c
tfl.O>bWOU)r. OvOI-400) 3
"04-+~ S.-.~i U*r-~.- a-as rr- 34-' 0
COLO) r5-U)~~ 40U)04-' Ci-
o tO>S-400)CWrWU)U) Or-Wi-
400)0. U4-~0 CiSc 0tC020
(1)41) 030000
L0U.c4-1-E (#20) .Ctfl~r 1-0'
a 4040V 540w >4003w Ci
"05-U) 0) 05-0. 0
CU)Sc0C)0S->~ OWOuln-
flOII..0 04-' 01- 05U 404-.OC >4- S 040


U)
03
'flu,
(01-03
0..CU)
1-0.0
Sc S.-
0-0)-C
400.
400
OU4-~
a a
4-) 40 *rrv 0)
U) tfl
w a) =1-50
40 4-'
4-' en


U)
'no
1-0..
0
S-c
1-0
C)
in
ro
n-l-
'us.-
00)


t) CC
0 *r *r i--
0. Q. 0
3 'n -a E --
OC r- 0 ) W*
o 'U an 0 n=
0S 3 3 *" n~
* *e -t On
t) 0 >0 "0 .C
> &- *r" &- $- ^
5-" o 000*r-
m S(U C3 3 -


I- *r 0,)
4-4-04- 4-4-0101
000U2'OOCC
-o 0 40w
S~LwL. S-S-CC
WW>0)CO0)WC
fl.fl~r.0 03.050 Q'r
S EV E~~C S 2 S.- 01
==C=0==ww
arwr40ZrO~C
-~ r~ r.
0.0 0 0W4-


1-
a)
-0
*T t0
C-^




Sin




toa











to
10
0)
We
>0)


r0
0)0)
Q~4-
Lii























to
In
0
I-





























U,
40
C.)
0)
-o
c0




n


0
40 5..
0) 0)
10 OC
5-.,-
*0-
0)>) 4-,
os--CC
=000
OWNS
>.Cr 0
040r- 1-
0
5- to
cw-oea
Oscar 0~J
2>2
W.r
S-C-C-a
0) eCs-
30r 00)
0) 4-
*0OC>)'I-
WCmIs-0
400
100>t0 0)-
oroOEO
4040030
In ore
0) V4-~0)C
CWCr 0
40 tO C C
ON
C>)
0=S-~0~O0
10 0LW.
I 00r100
23..C.C Or
0)I-401--.OLLJ
.0
C-
1-0 .0
a~


S.- 1-,
w col-
iar~fl
rr rW -
.9- 3- 0 )C 00 0
.rWOCO)
0)104-) .C.r0)
(fl4-)OCO
C4W104-'0
W=0)
S-20...0COJ
OCE
4-0)01- CL-
rUWO)OO
>1-00)
0)10400)0 -c
L-tncq-w4-'
= w~c
40.- rr0fl40 5-
0)
C4-).C c04-.fl
Sn. 0 r-0E
40 C(flO
to 4-~rf--C
EVCL.W
WruCWW>O
5-s- 0V40 0)40
0)0) 0r-
30u,40E
S-ru)
tfl'O.r- 0)400


S.. -c

0) 0
3 r0
CD


U)


*rdjtr-0J S..
0.C.~C.C40 ~c
040 10
1-0 ~4-r 'U
0)20) 04-4-' 0)
40 C 4-0) 2
0 r 10 >~.,- in
2 >Sr ~0 0)
2 0)


r-- -0 *r *-r- 0 0
r- C .CA" 0 .C -


CS-
r
0)
.CE
LOU)
0WW0~
2 O~r =4..3
0~0
0-0=5-C
0=-acm-
>5.
*~ .I~ *I~


(00 W*r
C 0)S-CSC.0
0 0)r40C
40.0
0) Sine
EU OC in
2 CC>
.0)0) 0-
U)
3- 040000
o 0)0)404005-
3- to
5- = 40400)
0) OCcOLO
40 00)0)
'4-. C (0 4040 0-w
o 0)40.1~)45J4-3 00
EOrtou) OC
I- C 0) =00 0*.-
0) 0)4-) 0..0-
.0r .4-3
S tn in-
=1000
~ 00..-.--


.9-
(0 100)
2bnC~~C
0.- 40
1-00
0)L-C
o -o O)'r
S-sr
cL>L
.1~~ ~
>)V War
1- C..Cv
0r-+J C
0)
.c inc
I in
S-CC>
0)0)0) 0..
fl..5CAC 0~
EcoeaO
fl404..) OS-
C 1-0)
.40400)
CCOC/)
00)0'>
4040 D..e
404040 00
rtfltflOC
COOOe-
=0-n-


.0


3-


.0)
(00)
Into
'-0)-c
0>40
I 010(0
0) 1-
v-wcew
-a> -o
-a0.Ctu
'9-fl 4-) S..
S EU LA 0)




a











U,
U,
0)
CC
>4)
flu->
4-'.?-
rU
0303
'I-
Ia-I






















to
a~e
U,
'U
I-


a a
o o
o 0
c~) (~)





C
.9-a,
Sc
til4)
cna
r~C

L6V O~
Er
,m1 ~ a~
n-OW C
o CCfl
a
.doc In

.4-)CC
030)00-
E.~e.r 1-
0000)
a
0) *1-
4J4~) 0.0)
c to mO
0*30)0
4)4J4~)
*,- U) (A 030
COO-CC


In


In
0)
U,
U
'U
C
0


e--i A.
0 *
D. 0
0-0
E)
0

A
*>
CXTr-
0OC


4JV In
taco)
UcSn
.9-
0.~O 0
.r=03


0) U) ri
4-) 0 0 4)
o E03 U
act- C
Sn a W4-~ 'U


43 0- 03 nI.-
liAr- CL.
0) tO OZr- 00)
4' C\J CD-
OL...J
C CI >0
C 'CC) 4-'
033->) 00
(AU) CDr 4-03
OOZ 1-. 43 S-Sn
to.-' OUC 01-
3w03SC0 0-0
WZWEv-4-'4-' L-JU
0)W.r0) CU)
0)1-
SC> 03.0 0 E IA .. LW
i-ws-o.c C0 0.0
3- Sn
I.C0.(fl1U050SnZ
Ins-
03Cr-
On-EOr->WU
*r.Sn wr-WOJCCfl
4)0C4C (A 0-a--'


=*
Cr4


In
LA U)
01~00)
cOUlI EU
(AG)
(hr (fl4-. Ed)
0"CSnOW
9--sow 9-
CU
'Eta 2
0) S-u-C)
I- I- 0)0W-

-o 3.C re
*r04)0iC
Er-Lfl~-0


SC S.->
09-
C tntt
o innac
E
00
o
3 0 CISC
.4-) 4.)
'9- fl C
0)
S- C.C
0)
.4w)
CA (A0r
'9- (U n-O
C C
'9- C C *r
E 0)0)
-o
taOtUtaU,
-o
4-' C4~4-~
CA 0) 0) 10 0-
0) WWL.
4~) >~4J 4) 0)
V
CZCC
043000-
*r U) 9- 9- 0
4-)
CLCCU
0)0)00)
43434~34~) 0)
0)4-C) CiSc
a~











In
In
0)
02=
>0)

04~
020)
a::'.-
4-
La























In
In
"S
I-





























U)
sea
U
0)
-o
(0




In


**
*r *r *r
-0-ceo
CCC
---
AAA
* S C

222
000
C~)O(~)
AAA
* C
0-0.0.
orn
odo
00Cc)


"S
r
-o o~~c
Co
00e~
rL0
*1-
024-'ce
9-
O,4- a
00=
'0 0 0)
*rktfl U
s-wC C
'U
20 2
Cr,
0= 0
in *.nq-. in
cnu~vWS-C
==owuwo
E0u~-oCa~,-
-~ 1/) Z C 0L~J4-)
=
sear
n~ouo
WE r4~0Jtfl
O)~C0C LL.
in 0) S.- 4...
.5- C 0)0.00
>'i- 0 U) S-L~JU
rO
o 0) tfltflS~4a
CflCCSCUS-02r
I 0rinW O.Or
C 02 S.. 2 0
0)(fl*r4-)
ww~a
.0 0) .4-' di 0)
o > CE S-~~
1- o0.C0.0U
Qec 01i1 I-

S
e'J


.9-CO


0

OWL)
*r Ii) 0
Ins.- 0)


r .9-
*0~0
CC
5-4 -


*0.
0..E
20
C-,

*
0.0.
rrj
00
(-'C-)


4-
fl)CWWS.-04-iWC
r-w L-. 0r 00.0
tflr.0) 4-)0J inin
OL-LS-0)04-'VWC
.PWO.00000J'0)O n
.4~3 *~LEC0r 0)
C004-)S- 0)0.4-' U
0E4-'OrWO)r In.. C
C.OZ.C.U)WGV'0 EU
4-~rL.04J4-'in>~0J 2
rG) 0) tCr0~O S-
mnh-mnWS-O1C 4- 0
0r02 Crr-i4-
0S~4-)Cr awudiL.
0O0 wcnufl-in>CUW
0.03 OtC ~0 0) 0)r C 0.
EU S- 0w
I V0 wE
WcCU-oS-3w0.>,~wS-4a
CO rL-OU
-o oo 0 3 CL) LA 0) Zt4~ 0)
0S-rO .C0Jr44-)tflS-S-
00025-
3OJr4J0 4-'4-)EWO-O
Or-0C024-)r- *5-ELJU
CI *rCOJr-O0)C
C -'~0 0 0 In 1-
Iwo a00 05-35.-C)
02 +~0JL 3 ca-on
.5- 20 Or- 0) w-o 0. 5- E
4-cawo .4a)~0)f'S
S.- LLJr
UO) flrq-O)0i.C0)
02000
0.S..OCOOS-G)0r'0EUfl
C/)0.4- 0-P4-) 0.303 0.'----

C
Cl,











In
In
0)
>0)


r-L)
00
#4-
Li~i






















In
In
'U
I-



























(0
LI
0)
.0
(0



em-


C



-r QJ *r"
O





*ono
> OL-* -** C: = C
*- o ^-t 0
O00C C trtU
CO 0 00
*- m e *
II ( 4-> <-
0-T E 0
E *Jco 0-
00 0 0000
OCUA CC
II
* C ** *C
0 .C 00 0-
^ C- 0 0 'U^


In
0)4.) p-U)
1- 00
U) COr S..
>00s-Iz
0'r.C 0) (A
Q4.) 4-~0
S rtflOW
In U) (61/) 2 2
tdW.r
4JXZS-00
CI4~ 2 I-
00)04- E
*e-Lt00
4-20.0) 5-
C O~>~OVO
W00r- 00
4-)CO)WS-r-
0) 0'4-' 0.5-
1- 30 0)
I In 0rW0.
QJ4J CO..C
0)05 0)4w) a)
001E -c
WL-QEC+J
w- *r 0
4-
0
C 4.) ~) 0) 5-
S
I C0.~'3C
U0Ih0) 0)
-o
4- 4) CA 0) 4)
*r CA.C.0 OnC
o *i 4.) 3 0-40
0
LflC'r '-4(00


0)
(-I
=
EU
S
5-
0
nt~~
'us-
00)
Co.
'UL-J


4-0)
5-'-
05-
0-0
'-'U
(05..
'*5-0)
V 0-0

~LLJ~
o
CO-C
* I- ~








implemented


such


Initially


, learning


disabled


(LD)


students


were


given


a computational


kill


pretest


to determine


which


basi


computational


kill


addition


ubtraction


, multiplication,


divi


ion)


student


mastered


w&l


skill


should


tfh ztr


-' a


. A t'-


h "to


~ r ore


less:


than


on an arithmeti


-" rrrr


know edge


four


operational


areas


arithmetic,


other


some


knowledge


four


operational


areas.


each


arithmetic


operation


level


difficulty


none


students


tudy


ervabl e


knowl edge


kill


across


four operational


areas


arithmetic


level


diffi


ulty.


ests


that


used


in thi


tudy


meet


criteria


probl em


solving


task.


analy


variety of


task


(John


sons


' studies


Tabl e


cooperative


goal


structure


cons


tently


better


than


competitive


individualistic


goal


structures


percent


measures


on drill


-review


task


recent


measures


on problem-solving


tasks


that


included


three


goal


structures.


percent


measures


on s


patial


-reas


oning


tasks.


percent


f all


measures


on a


specific


-knowl


dge-


acqui


ition


task


percent


rcen t


measures


measures


on a


on a


memory


retention


task.


task


(when


number


of student


was used


as n


LL4


c~;it







Also,


cooperative


goal


structure


better


than


individualistic


goal


structure


percent


measures


on problem-


olving


that


incl uded


only


cooperative


individualistic


goal


structures.


percent


measures


on a


retention


task


(when


cooperative


group


took


posttest


their


own group


individual


group


took


post-


test


as individual


Table


hows


that


although


superiority


cooperation


substantial


complex


(problem


-solving),


tends


good


or better


than


competition


individual i


goal


structures


on s


imple


drill


activities


organic


material


(respectively)


Further


tudy


analy


variety


corroborate


finding


indicates


previ ou


that


research.


result


pecifi


call


student


individualistic


goal


structure


performed


better


on one


problem-sol ving


task


one s


tudy


(John


son,


Johnson,


Scott,


1978)


where


sttest


were


taken


as individual


instead


group
study


cooperative


(Johnsop,


Johnson,


individual


Anderson,


1976),


conditions.


however,


another


individual


cooperative


were


equally effective


on s


students


' achievement.


Johnson


, Johnson,


Scott


(1978),


students


in .the


individual


goal


structure


structure


on a


retained


retention


more


task


then


students


when


postte


cooperative


was taken


goal


as indivi








individual i


condition


have


performed


better


than


those


cooperative


cooperative


in the


condition.


condition


individual


other


posttested


group


are te


hand


in their

ted as in


when


d


students


own group
ividuals,


students

coopera-


-c


better


9rocup.


Cautiou


interpretation


arithmetic


performance


result


researcher


used


analy


f covariance


(ANCOVA)


to test


null


pothesi


that


there


are no differences


arithmetic


posttest


scores


learning


disabled


adole


scents


participate


in the


cooperative


games


competitive


games


traditional


work


heet


learning


activities


Analysis


covariance


(ANCOVA)


suppose


tati


tically


control


initial


differences


students


which


might


have


been


pre-


sent


ments.


which


But,


might


some


have


researcher


confounded


believe


difference


ANCOVA


between


does


treat-


adjust


initial


differences


between


populations


success


fully


or with


total


sati


faction.


cautiou


interpretations


arithmeti c


per-


formance


result


should


cons


idered.


Table


(Chapter


presented


adju


unadjusted mean


standard


deviation


arithmetic


performance


for each


group.


A cautious


interpretation


ari thmeti c


performance


result


consid


when


looking


unadju


posttest


means


pretest


means


. The


raw data


indicate


that


competitive


game


group


point


increa


traditional


work


heet


group


+,hs:!







mance,

mance


one may


argue


student


that


began


more


difficult


an intervention


with


increase


higher


perfor-


scores


than


increase


performance


students


began


intervention


with


lower


scores.


Behavior


presence


significant


interaction


between


covariate


pretestt)


dependent


variable


-tas


behavior)


prevented


interpretation


test


overall


treatment


effect,


also


indicated


that


there


were


differential


treatment


effect


subjects


certain


level


pretest.


Johnson


-Neyman


technique,


follow-up


analy


used


indi


cate


high


(and


low)


pretest


scores


should


order


treatment


group


means


f on-task


behavior


significantly


different.


fact


that


cooperative


group


no prete


scores


lower


than


result ted


researcher


extrapolating


part


line


predictability


scores


that


were


or lower


. Thus,


subsequent


interpretation


ability


student


perati


group


were


based


on thi


extrapolation


should


read


with much


caution


significant


difference


between


amount


time


on-task


among


group


depend


on the


level


prete


ability


examin-


contra


between


cooperative


games


group


versus


competi ti ve


games


group


found


that


when


level


ability


lower


cooperative


games


group


they were


more


on-task








When


level


ability


was higher


cooperative


game


group


their


on-task


behavior


was significantly


lower


than


that


subject


with


higher


ability


competitive


games


group.


examining


contrast


between


cooperative


games


group


versus


in't A4


.17 tr


Srr t;


owe'r


tcopcrative


amos
Ys~n


group


they were


more


on-ta


than


lower


ability


student


traditional


work-


heet


group


when


level


ability was


higher


cooperative


games


group


their


on-task


behavior


was s


significantly


lower


than


that


students


with


higher


ability


traditional


work


heet


group.


contrast


between


competitive


games


group


traditional


point


ability


work


on the


heet


group,


there


pretest.


was no

region


difference


ignifi


cancer


these


group


were


outside


erved


prete


scores


as 9.75


as high


as 5


.44)


with


highest


possible


pretest


score


being


Therefore,


concluded


that


observation


tudy


there


were


no s


significant


differences


between


competitive


games


group


traditional


work


heet


group.


Achievement and


Behavior


results


indicate


low relationship


between


arithmetic


per-


formance


time


pent


on-task


overall


group


- 1d*


.05)


analysis


data


indicate


that


ubje


rece iv-


- .


traditional


work


heet


were


generally


on-ta


- -


o a higher


pile


~nlrC


?~!~C"~7


- --


V


.


w


w