Attitudes and achievement within a cooperative learning context in a large -section mathematics course for future business majors

At the Ohio State University, 30% of students were failing Math 131, a second course in the business mathematics sequence. The Department of Mathematics, under the direction of Prof. Ed Dubinsky, implemented a cooperative learning method to address the high failure rate. The unusual feature was the use of small groups in lectures ranging from 60 to 120 students. The method was implemented in all sections of Math 131 during the two research quarters---autumn 1998 (about 400 students) and winter 1999 (about 500 students).;This study investigated (1) the training of instructors---faculty members and graduate teaching associates (GTAs)---in the cooperative learning method, (2) instructors' attitudes toward the method after teaching Math 131, (3) students' attitudes toward the method, and (4) student performance in business calculus, Math 132, following the first reform quarter in Math 131.;(1) Nine of the 14 instructors who taught Math 131 attended the Cooperative Learning Workshop in summer 1998. The trained instructors said that the Workshop prepared them for the problems encountered in Math 131, especially during the first quarter of the reform when, as predicted by the research, students spoke up against the novelty of the teaching method. The untrained GTAs, although experienced and capable, did not feel confident about using the cooperative learning method during the first quarter of the reform but continued next quarter.;(2) Most of the instructors said that it took them two quarters of teaching Math 131 to find their "comfort zone" with using the cooperative learning method.;(3) During both quarters, about 80% of Math 131 students were either freshmen or sophomores and about 75% were intended business majors. The first quarter of the reform was difficult for students. Even though about 50% of them said that they had experienced a cooperative learning method in a mathematics classroom before, their strong reactions against the method used in Math 131 indicated that they had not encountered this type of the method. Almost 30% of the 153 respondents claimed responsibility for their own learning but "I don't like to teach myself" was the predominant sentiment During the second quarter of the reform, students' reactions were not as strong or hostile. A statistically higher number of students claimed responsibility for their own learning (53% of the 182 respondents). Although future business students were predominantly relational learners, they wanted to be taught mathematics via the traditionally impersonal approach, the lecture method.;(4) Thirteen of the 27 interviewed students who continued in business calculus, Math 132, missed the cooperative learning method and 8 of them organized their own study groups. Ten were glad to return to the lecture format Three said that they benefited from the work ethic that the cooperative learning method in Math 131 taught them.;Statistical analyses of Math 132 grades for students coming from Math 131 taught with two different methods--- the traditional lecture and the cooperative learning---showed a significant reduction in the odds of failing Math 132 by students coming from the reform Math 131. Those students did no worse in Math 132 than students coming from Math 131 that had been taught with the lecture method, but the length of time between taking Math 131 and Math 132 was a confounding variable.