International Journal of Educational Research 48 (2009) 370380

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

International Journal of Educational Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedures

Experimental evaluation of the effects of cooperative learning on

kindergarten childrens mathematics ability
Perihan Dinc Artut *
Cukurova University, Faculty of Education, Department of Elementary Education, 01330, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O

A B S T R A C T

Article history:
Received 8 October 2009
Received in revised form 22 March 2010
Accepted 12 April 2010

The aims of this study were to investigate the effects of cooperative learning on the
mathematics ability and cooperative social behaviours of kindergarten children and to
evaluate teachers perspectives on the application of the program. One control (n = 17) and
one experimental group (n = 17) were studied. In the experimental group, a curriculum
based on cooperative learning method activities was used. Significant improvements in
mathematics abilities were found for children in the experimental group that utilised
cooperative learning.
! 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Cooperative learning
Early childhood
Mathematics ability

1. Introduction
The learning of mathematics in school contexts builds on a substantial base of knowledge that is acquired before formal
education begins. Understanding what children already know when they enter school is critical both for identifying concepts
that still need to be taught and also for identifying strengths upon which further instruction can be based. Some
mathematical skills are universally acquired; others may or may not be acquired depending on the environments in which
the child has developed (Siegler, 2003).
The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM, 2000) suggests that the Principles and Standards for School
Mathematics should be used as a baseline from preschool through grade 12. This is both an essential goal and a significant
challenge. To achieve this goal, schools must raise expectations for childrens mathematics learning, develop effective
methods of supporting mathematics education for all children, and provide children and teachers with the resources they
need to meet these standards (NCTM, 2000).
Young children use reasoning and problem-solving skills in their informal learning, and teachers must be aware that
young children can think in sophisticated ways. Children obtain some informal mathematics abilities in the preschool
period, generally learning to count, write some numbers and identify basic geometric shapes. Young children are dynamic,
resourceful individuals who construct, revise, and combine ideas by interacting with the physical world, their peers and
adults. They use preexisting information to construct their knowledge and learn by talking about what they are thinking and
doing and by cooperating and sharing their ideas (EYFS, 2009; NCTM, 2000).
According to The NCTM (2001) and Early Years Foundation Stage, (EYFS, 2009) a variety of teaching methods should be
used to improve childrens mathematics skills. Manipulatives should be used more often so that learners will have a concrete
basis of understanding when using abstract numbers and equations. Learning environments should reinforce active learning
and teaching, and individual, small-group, and whole-group learning should be employed in the classroom environment.

* Tel.: +90 322 3386521; fax: +90 322 3386440.

E-mail address: partut@cu.edu.tr.
0883-0355/$ see front matter ! 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ijer.2010.04.001

P.D. Artut / International Journal of Educational Research 48 (2009) 370380

371

Cooperative learning is one instructional method that can be used to facilitate active learning among children, an important
aspect of mathematics that is highly appreciated by mathematics educators and researchers. Several studies (Al-Halal, 2001;
Artut & Tarim, 2007; Gomleksiz, 1997; Karper & Melnick, 1993; Tarim, 2003; Slavin & Karweit, 1985; Slavin, Leavey, &
Madden, 1984; Tarim & Akdeniz, 2008; Tarim & Artut, 2004) have indicated that studying in cooperative groups effectively
improves childrens mathematics abilities.
Cooperative learning is an instructional technique that enables students to work together to maximise their own and each
others learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1999); it is used in many fields and at different grade levels. Children are given a chance
to interact and improve their overall communication skills with their friends while engaging in cooperative tasks (Rogoff,
1998; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998). Cooperative interactions promote learning and cognitive development because
children teach, guide, and assist one another when solving problems and completing tasks together (Slavin, 1987). The
common theory regarding cooperative learning is that students work together to learn, and they are responsible for one
anothers learning as well as their own (Slavin, 1990). This technique is broadly used due to its positive effects on academic
achievement, peer relations, self-esteem, attitude, anxiety and the inclusion of children with special needs (Johnson &
Johnson, 1981; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Leikin & Zaslavsky, 1997; Sharan, 1980; Slavin, Madden, & Leavey, 1984; Tarim,
2003; Tarim & Artut, 2004). Preschoolers cognitive growth may also be supported by cooperative mutual interactions
(Howes, Unger, & Matheson, 1992; Rogoff, 1998). Many school programs reinforce cooperation in classrooms to raise interest
and to develop students mathematics, reading, and problem-solving skills (EYFS, 2009; Moyles, 1989; NCTM, 2001; Tarim &
Artut, 2004).
Slavin (1995, p. 4) states that cooperative learning is being used extensively in every conceivable subject, from
kindergarten through college, and in all kinds of schools throughout the world. Similarly, Askew and Wiliam (1998)
emphasised that the positive effects of cooperative learning activities did not depend on the childrens ages, skills, or type of
school attended (e.g., state school, private school, or central school). Children discover new strategies not only while solving
problems on their own, but also while working with others towards common goals. Examples of such problem solving
involve scaffolding situations in which a more knowledgeable student helps a less knowledgeable student learn (Siegler,
2003). However, studies investigating cooperative learning environments in the preschool period are limited (Avcioglu,
2003; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Karns, 2001; Ramani, 2005; Tarim & Artut, 2004; Williams-Jones, 2004; Yildiz, 1998). Vermette, Harper
and DiMillo (2004) have reported that most studies of cooperative learning activities involved children who were more than
48 years old. Based on their review of that literature, these authors stated that young children need formally structured
cooperative experiences and that working in pairs has a powerful impact on gains in reading-writing ability and
understanding of math concepts.
In cooperative learning, classes are divided into small groups or teams, usually containing 36 students of heterogeneous
ability, who must try to solve a problem or master a task. In the jigsaw method, a common variant of cooperative learning,
each child becomes the groups expert in a particular part of the task, and the task solution requires the contributions of all of
the experts (Damon & Phelps 1989; cited by Siegler, 2003). Curran (1998) stated that the achievement of a well-structured
cooperative environment requires focus on three social skills, or standards, to facilitate the application of cooperative
learning in the preschool period: (1) children should learn by active listening and (2) happy talk, and (3) all students should
be active participants. Adherence to these standards provides a non-threatening and positive atmosphere in which children
can work together in groups and share their mathematics ideas.
1.1. Active listening
The most important standard of cooperative learning is active listening. It is particularly important that children are ready
to listen. The speaker should know that the others are looking at him, are listening to what he is saying and are not more
interested in other things. Active listening material has been designed to formalise this standard so that it can be applied
more effectively. This material includes pictures of a pair of eyes, a pair of ears and a pair of hands. Children then talk about
what these pictures mean. The eyes mean that children should look at the speaker while listening to him, the ears mean that
children should listen to the speaker carefully, and the hands mean that children should not be interested in other things
while listening to him (Curran, 1998).
1.2. Happy talk
This standard is used to develop childrens habits of using positive expressions and constructing positive sentences in their
mutual interactions. These sentences are called happy talk because each individual makes a positive contribution to the
groups success with these conversations. Phrases such as thats very kind of you, thank you for your help, I know that you
can do this, go on, you will manage it and how well youre painting! are examples of happy talk (Curran, 1998, p.4).
1.3. Everyone participates
This standard asserts that each member of the group fulfils his own responsibility in order to achieve the groups overall
aim. The tasks can be defined and distributed to group members in different ways, but it is very important that the children
believe the tasks are distributed fairly and that they do not feel any hesitation about the task distribution. This is the only way

372

P.D. Artut / International Journal of Educational Research 48 (2009) 370380

to positively begin group work. The best way to ensure this is to have the children in the group select a random number and
then take previously numbered tasks, or select a coloured card and take the task previously defined for that colour (Curran,
1998).
The present study evaluates the effect of cooperative learning on kindergarten childrens mathematics ability. Research
questions included the following:
(1) Does the cooperative learning method have an effect on childrens mathematics learning?
(2) What are the teachers views of her experience with the cooperative learning method?
(3) What cooperative behaviours did the students exhibit in the cooperative learning condition?
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
The study took place in two private kindergartens in the city centre of Adana, Turkey. The schools were randomly chosen
to be experimental and comparison (control) groups. The study took place in two different schools to eliminate interactions
between children and teachers in the experimental and comparison groups. The children in these two private kindergartens
were mostly from middle- and high-income families, and their parents were mostly university graduates with careers as
doctors, nurses, engineers, and teachers. Seventeen children (9 females, 8 males) were in the experimental group; the same
number (8 females, 9 males) was in the comparison group. Most of the children did not know how to read and write.
A teacher and assistant teacher were present in both the experimental and comparison groups. The teacher in the
experimental group had 11 years of experience and the teacher in the comparison group had 13 years of experience; both
were female. In an interview conducted prior to the experiment, both teachers stated that they almost never used group
work in any academic subject, except for games, and that they encountered problems when they tried to get the children to
work in groups. This study considered Johnson, Johnson, and Stanne (2000)s criticism about researchers potentially
introducing bias into the results when conducting studies. For this reason, the activities in this study were conducted by the
teachers themselves.
The teacher in the experimental group attended a five-hour training session prior to the application of the cooperative
learning techniques. This training introduced the cooperative learning method along with information about how to use it in
a kindergarten classroom. The program prepared by the researcher was also introduced and then redesigned with input from
the teacher of the experimental group.
2.2. Measures
2.2.1. The Test of Early Mathematics AbilityThird Edition (TEMA-3)
The Test of Early Mathematics AbilityThird Edition was developed by Ginsburg and Baroody (2003) to evaluate
childrens mathematics abilities. Validity and reliability studies of the TEMA-3 for six-year-old Turkish children were
performed by Erdogan and Baran (2006).
TEMA-3 is a norm-referenced parallel forms test intended to identify the mathematical ability of children aged 3 years
and 0 months through 8 years and 11 months. According to the authors of this instrument, it can also be used as a criterion or
a diagnostic tool for older children having difficulty in mathematics. Additionally, the TEMA-3 can be used to identify
children who are significantly ahead of or behind their peers in mathematical thinking, identify specific strengths and
weaknesses in mathematics, document progress in learning arithmetic, and provide information to guide instructional
practices. The TEMA-3 was designed to measure a childs overall mathematical knowledge. Specifically, the test measures
informal (e.g., numbering and calculation) and formal (e.g., written representation of numbers) mathematics skills.
The TEMA-3 (Ginsburg & Baroody, 2003) contains four categories of items that assess informal mathematics: (a)
numbering skills, (b) number comparison facility, (c) calculation skills, and (d) conceptual understanding. The TEMA-3 has
two parallel forms: Form A and Form B. Both produce a score with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The
alternate-form reliability for the TEMA-3 is 0.93. The two-week test/retest reliability is 0.82 for Form A and 0.93 for Form B.
The TEMA-3 has demonstrated a moderate to strong correlation with several measures of mathematics and number skills
(Ginsburg & Baroody, 2003).
The validity and reliability studies of TEMA-3 using Turkish children were performed by Erdogan and Baran (2006). A
group of 200 children between 60 and 72 months of age participated in this adaptation study of the test. Erdogan and Baran
translated the test into Turkish and confirmed the validity of both the language and content.For the test-retest reliability
study, TEMA-3 was administered to 200 children, half of whom were given Form A and half of whom were given Form B.
Three weeks after the initial administration of the test, Form A and Form B were administered again to 120 of the children.
The correlation results (reliability coefficients) of the scores in the first and second administration of the test were 0.90 from
Form A to Form A, 0.88 from Form A to Form B, 0.90 from Form B to Form B and 0.90 from Form B to Form A. The interior
consistency coefficient was calculated to test the reliability of the assessment. The KR-20 value/internal consistency was
found to be 0.92 for Form A and 0.93 for Form B.The known mathematics ability levels of 60 six-year-old children were used
as external criteria to analyse the validity of the TEMA-3. Form A and Form B were administered to 30 children with

P.D. Artut / International Journal of Educational Research 48 (2009) 370380

373

extremely low or extremely high mathematics abilities, according to their teachers. The results of a MannWhitney U-Test
showed that the scores of the 30 children designated as having higher mathematics abilities were significantly higher than
the scores of the 30 children designated as having lower mathematics abilities, on both Form A and Form B. This
demonstrated that the TEMA-3 can distinguish between children with strong and weak mathematics abilities. Pictures,
mathematical symbols, and countable small objects are used as materials in Forms A and B of the TEMA-3 (Ginsburg &
Baroody, 2003).
Although the forms were similar, the internal consistency coefficient of the B form adapted to the Turkish was slightly
better. Therefore, this study used TEMA-3 Form B as a pre-test and a post-test in the experimental and comparison groups.
One example of a TEMA-3 item is given in Appendix B. The administration of the test took an average of half an hour for each
child.
2.2.2. Observation
In line with the objectives of the study, a semi-structured observation form was prepared by the researcher. This form was
used to record whether the children showed cooperative learning behaviours such as participating in the class activities,
sharing and understanding the instructions. During the first 3 weeks of the study (the preparation period), the researcher
observed both the comparison and experimental groups. Once the children were deemed to behave naturally in the presence
of the researcher, formal class observations began.
Throughout the study, the researcher observed each session in the experimental and comparison groups. Each
observation took approximately one hour. The observation form was used to record each observation session so that no data
would be lost. Descriptive notes were taken and all behaviours and interactions between the subjects were recorded
throughout an unstructured observation. The observations were written down; video cameras were not used during the
observation to avoid distracting the children.
2.2.3. Teacher interview
At the beginning and at the end of the study, the researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with teachers in the
experimental and comparison groups. Teachers were asked for their perspectives about cooperative group work in
kindergarten education, the general structure of their classroom, the levels of their children, and the needs of their
classrooms. In the final interview, the teacher of the experimental group was asked to give an overall evaluation of group
work, childrens acquisition of math skills, and her opinions about the cooperative learning method.
2.2.4. Instructional intervention
The program used in the experimental group consisted of activities that use the cooperative learning method. This
program was developed by the author of the current study based on literature about the cooperative learning method
(Aronson, 1978, 2000; Kagan, 1992), particularly work by Curran (1998). The mathematics activities in the program included
art- and literature-based activities, and a series of cooperative structures was used in each activity. Different structures can
be used for each part of the activity; these include gathering ideas using social skills, gathering ideas for the team product,
sharing the team product, evaluating the use of social skills, and debriefing the activity. During the experiment, 13
activitiesaddition (three activities), subtraction (three activities), addition and subtraction (two activities), apportioning
(three activities) and pattern (two activities)were completed. Stories suitable for the themes of the activities were used as
an introduction in each session.
The researcher gave these activities (see Appendix A) to the experimental group teacher beforehand. The teacher and the
researcher then worked together to improve the original lesson designs, changing the duration of the activity, the method
used for forming the groups, and the stories and songs used. The intervention was then performed two days a week (for an
hour each time) for 13 weeks. The first 3 weeks were used for preparation studies. The same mathematical concepts
(addition, subtraction, apportioning, patterning) were taught in both groups.
2.2.5. Treatment
A teaching program based on cooperative learning methods was followed in the experimental group.
In the experimental group, groups of two, three and four were formed according to the nature of the activity structures.
These groups were generated randomly. When forming a group of three, for example, three pictures of the same animals
were put in a bag. Then, the children drew a picture from the bag. The children who drew the same animals formed a group.
The same procedures were repeated to form different random groups throughout the treatment. The program used in the
experimental group is outlined below:
1. Children received the necessary descriptions of the program and participated in getting-to-know-you activities. Here,
teachers explained active listening and happy talk.
2. Activities involving the entire class were used to prepare children for the group work. These activities included rhythmic
counting forward, backward, and lapping using an abacus and the counting materials prepared by the researcher.
3. Groups of three were formed randomly as described above. The children were instructed to create a name for their groups
and draw pictures representing their groups in order to develop group awareness. Children chose to identify their groups
as stars, daisies, dinosaurs, etc.

374

P.D. Artut / International Journal of Educational Research 48 (2009) 370380

Table 1
Mathematical concepts taught in both groups.
Mathematical concept activities
Experiment

Control

Addition

Three cooperative learning activities

Subtraction

Three cooperative learning activities

Additionsubtraction

Two cooperative learning activities

Apportioning

Three cooperative learning activities

Patterning

Two cooperative learning activities

"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"

Two individual activities with concrete material

Two individual activities with worksheets
Two individual activities with concrete material
Two individual activities with worksheet
One whole-class game activity
one individual activity with worksheet
One whole-class game activity
One individual activity with worksheet
One individual activity with worksheet
One individual activity with worksheet
one individual activity with worksheet

4. Some cooperative activities, such as corner and pairs-checks, were done in groups of four so that the children could get to
know each other better and improve their abilities to work together.
5. Children participated in some activities involving the mathematical concepts within the scope of the study, such as
addition, subtraction, apportioning and patterning.
6. Materials for cutting, pasting, and painting and activities appropriate for the story or topic were used in the activities
about mathematical concepts. Group members were encouraged to share their materials. For example, a group of three
was guided to work with only one painting set, a pair of scissors, one bottle of glue and one background paper.
7. At the end of each activity, the groups were instructed to paint a picture appropriate for the story or the topic from the
activity. If the objective of the activity involved addition and/or subtraction, the operation appropriate to the picture was
written as a group. The aim of this step was to have each group produce a common product.
8. Different activities teaching mathematical concepts were applied twice a week for 10 weeks.
9. In the final week, children received an evaluation and certificates of achievement.

The same mathematical concepts were taught in both the control and experimental groups (see Table 1). The teacher of
the control group used concrete materials and worksheets to teach addition, subtraction, apportioning, and patterning. The
children in the control class worked individually with concrete materials and worksheets prepared in this study or obtained
from related kindergarten mathematics books; they never worked in groups.
2.2.6. Data analysis
An independent sample t-test was used to determine whether there was a statistically significant difference between the
means of the TEMA-3 pre-test scores of the two groups. The pre-test mean scores of the children in the comparison group
were slightly higher than the pre-test mean scores of the children in the experimental group, so a covariance analysis was
used to determine whether differences in the post-test mean scores of the groups were significant. Analysis of covariance is
an extension of analysis of variance in which the main effects and interactions of independent variables are assessed after
dependent variable scores are adjusted for differences associated with one or more covariates (Tabachnick & Fidel, 1996, p.
321). A probability value of p ! 0.05 was considered statistically significant for both tests.
Content analysis was used to evaluate the qualitative data obtained from the observations and the interviews.
Throughout the observations, the childrens cooperative behaviours (sharing, cooperating, and valuing their peers opinions)
and cognitive behaviours (the ability to do simple addition, subtraction, apportioning and patterning) were recorded and
transcribed. The observation notes were systematically organised and prepared for analysis. In the content analysis, the data
were coded according to the cooperative behaviour displayed; these are presented in Table 3. Newly appearing codes were
also included in the coding list. Then, themes were prepared based on this coding schema. During interviews, data were
recorded with a voice recorder and transcribed by the researcher after repetitive listening. The researcher then used content
analysis and the coding list in order to define the themes of the cooperative learning process.
3. Results
The findings of the study are reported in two sections: (a) results obtained from the TEMA-3 tests administered before and
after the study, (b) advantages and disadvantages of the program based on the cooperative learning method.
3.1. Results of the TEMA-3 test given before and after the experiment
Table 2 shows the means and standard deviations of the TEMA-3 pre-test and post-test scores for each group. The
pre-test mean of the comparison group was higher (M = 104.70; SD = 10.83) than the mean of experimental

375

P.D. Artut / International Journal of Educational Research 48 (2009) 370380

Table 2
Statistical analysis of TEMA-3 pre-test and post-test scores in both groups.
Groups

Pre-test

Post-test

Estimated post-test

SD

SD

SE

Experimental
Comparison

17
17

101.52
104.70

11.84
10.83

109.4
105.11

10.94
15.38

110.80
103.72

2.20
2.21

Estimated post-tests are adjusted for the pre-test.

Table 3
Themes and codes used to describe observation findings.
Themes

Codes

Cooperating and sharing

- Offering help to his/her friends

- Sharing his/her materials (coloured pens, eraser, glue, etc.)

Listening to the instructions

- Listening to teacher
- Warning to friends about listening to teacher
- Stopping his/her activity when teacher is speaking

Participating of each child

- Participating in the work, completing his/her task

- Willing to complete the task

Working in a group

- Working cooperatively in the group

- Suggesting solutions to problems encountered in the group

group (M = 101.52; SD = 11.84). However, a t-test found no statistically significant difference between the two groups (t
(32) = #.816, p > 0.05).
A covariance analysis was used to determine whether a statistically significant difference existed between the post-test
mean scores of the two groups. The analysis of the TEMA-3 data indicated a significant overall treatment effect in favour of
the experimental group, F(1, 31) = 5.09, p < .05.
3.2. Advantages and disadvantages of the program based on the cooperative learning method: the observation
The observational findings were categorised into four groups: cooperating and sharing, listening to the instructions,
participation of each child, and working in a group.
3.2.1. Cooperating and sharing
At the beginning of the study, children in the experimental group were not willing to cooperate and share. When only one
of some item or material was given to each group according to the principles of cooperative studies, the children who
owned the materials being used in the group (e.g., crayons, glue) did not want to share these materials with the group
members.
As the group work continued, children began to share and cooperate. Some children let their friends take the material
they needed without asking. Most of the children uttered some sentences during the cooperative studies such as I have
finished my task. Can I help you?, May I use your pencil, please?, If you want, you can borrow my blue pencil.
During a cooperative activity involving addition, the following dialogue was observed between two students in same
group:
Irem: [You miswrote] the 6.
Melek: Yes, I [miswrote] it (glances furtively at the 6 tag on the blackboard).
Irem: Do you want me to teach you the correct writing of 6?

In another activity, one child who was skilled at mathematics helped his friend correctly write the subtraction sign #.
In most of the observation sessions in the control group, the children used their own materials in each activity (e.g.,
crayons, glue and scissors) and did not share with their classmates. For example, one child wanted a red crayon from one of
his classmates. His friend said, No, it belongs to me and I do not want you to use it then it will be lost. The children in this
group were more independent and competitive while doing their tasks. Also, being the first to complete the task appeared to
be crucial to these students.
3.2.2. Listening to the instructions
By the end of the process, the children in the experimental group were better at listening to the teachers instructions. At
the beginning of the study, the teacher had difficulty getting the childrens attention while giving the necessary explanations

376

P.D. Artut / International Journal of Educational Research 48 (2009) 370380

or distributing the tasks. However, the children learned that they could complete their tasks only if they listened to
instructions carefully, and this problem disappeared. For instance, the following dialogue was recorded between the
partners in one of the activities of dual groups:
Can: Sssst! Let us listen to the teacher. She is talking about what we are supposed to do.
Peri: You are right. We did the wrong work before because we did not listen to him carefully. This time, we will be a good
group.
3.2.3. Participation of each child
Cooperative studies were designed with the idea that all children would participate, and this design had positive results.
Each group member in the experimental group was willing and careful about fulfilling his or her individual responsibilities.
Children in the control group were sometimes unwilling or unable to complete their tasks.
For instance, in the experimental group, children working in groups of three were asked to create a pattern and then draw
their own pattern picture. A part of the dialogue between the butterflies group is reproduced below:
Filiz: Let us choose the animal figures we will use as a pattern. I want to use the dolphin figure.
Sencer: (excitedly) I will take the jellyfish.
Fulya: I pick the octopus. I can draw the first figure.
Filiz: I am drawing one dolphin.
Sencer: I am drawing three jellyfish.
Fulya: Its my turn. (She drew two octopi). . .
The groups congratulated each other when they had completed their patterns, and waited their turn to share their works
with the class.
In the control group, a similar exercise was performed individually, using worksheets. Some students were unwilling to
do these worksheets. An example of dialogue between the teacher and the student is below:
Teacher: Come on Ege! You did not finish your work again.
Ege: I dont want to continue anymore. I am bored.
Teacher: Ok, I want you to finish it at home.
3.2.4. Working in a group
Children in the experimental group also provided solutions to the problems that occurred during the group work by
considering group awareness. Two sample observations about this issue are below:
One child who had a difficult time drawing a picture on one paper proposed the following solution to the conflict:
This picture will be our product. Thats why we should draw on it at the same time.
In a different activity, completed in pairs, children were asked to cut out seven cats during a cut and paint activity. One
child proposed a solution to one of his friends to provide a fair distribution of the work: First, why dont we cut and paint three
cats each? Then, you will cut and paint half of the cat left and I will cut and paint the other half of it.
The cooperative learning lesson plans used in the program allowed the children to develop both their mental and motor
skills because they contained literature, art, and mathematics at the same time. These kinds of cooperative activities helped
the children to better understand abstract concepts. In addition, the children enjoyed the activities and approached new
activities enthusiastically.
The teacher in the control group preferred whole-class activities, particularly game-like activities that were applied just
for fun. Consequently, no change was observed in childrens behaviours when working in a group.
3.3. Advantages and disadvantages of the program based on the cooperative learning method: interview
At the beginning of the study, the teacher in the experimental group stated that she had some concerns about group work. She
added that the children became distracted easily and did not listen to her instructions while in groups. The teacher also indicated
that she did not like group work because the children often continued to work individually, even if they worked and sat in groups,
because they were not aware of the group dynamics. Thus, the teacher had negative ideas about group work before the study.
At the end of the study, the teacher in the experimental group said that the children had improved their cooperation and
sharing skills, that every child actively participated in the activities, that there were improvements in recognising and
writing numbers, and that the students addition, subtraction and apportioning skills had increased. The teacher indicated
that the activities used helped change abstract mathematical concepts into concrete ones. She also said that the activities
were amusing for the children, and supported their cognitive and motor skill development. The observational data also
supported her conclusions. The teachers attitude towards group work changed positively, as well. She indicated that she
liked the cooperative activities and would be willing to use them in the future.

P.D. Artut / International Journal of Educational Research 48 (2009) 370380

377

The teacher of the control group stated that the children worked on the apportioning, addition and subtraction activities
individually using activities from the books, and more often used concrete materials. The teacher was asked if she used group
work and, if so, how she structured those activities. The teacher stated that the children sometimes did group work, but that
the children usually worked individually during these activities even though they sat in groups. For example, in one activity,
each child made several different geometric shapes with play dough; they then counted the total number of the shapes made
by the group (after being asked How many total shapes did your group make?).
4. Discussion
Improvements in mathematics abilities (i.e., increased TEMA-3 scores) of children in the experimental group were
observed after their participation in cooperative learning activities. Clear improvements were observed despite some
limitations of the study, such as its small sample size, some characteristics of the subjects, and the length of the study.
In general, cooperative learning has been shown to produce positive effects on childrens mathematics ability (Al-Halal,
2001; Artut & Tarim, 2007; Gomleksiz, 1997; Karper & Melnick, 1993; Slavin & Karweit, 1985; Slavin, Madden, et al.,
1984; Tarim, 2003; Tarim & Akdeniz, 2008; Tarim & Artut, 2004). Therefore, the results of this study are consistent with
prior research. We may infer that the improvement in mathematics abilities can be attributed to the cooperative
program.
During the implementation of the program, the children worked in randomly formed groups. In these groups, children
sometimes worked with partners of equal skills or partners with more or less advanced skills. Several contemporary
theorists, including Piaget, emphasise the importance of different social contexts and social interactions with partners of
equal (as cited in Ramani, 2005) or more advanced skills (Vygotsky, 1978) in promoting learning and cognitive
development.
Vygotsky has also argued that children develop cognitive skills by interacting with more advanced partners, such as more
skilled peers or adults. When interacting with a more advanced partner, children are challenged to participate in more
advanced problem solving than they would be capable of independently. One of the best ways to achieve this in the
classroom atmosphere is to provide a cooperative learning environment. Similarly, Doise and Mugny (1984, p. 23) stated that
there is a close and a reciprocal relationship between the social interaction and the cognitive development. Johnson and
Johnson (1991, p. 7) also stated that children should be cognitively active while they learn in order to understand
mathematics. Cognitively active learning occurs in the context of cooperative learning groups, in which children discuss and
explain what they are learning.
Observational data examined at the end of the study indicated that the children in the experimental group exhibited more
cooperative and sharing behaviour than they did at the beginning of the study. In the control group, no or few cooperative
behaviours or sharing attempts were seen in the observation sessions. Hertz-Lazarowitz, Sharan, and Steinberg (1980)
showed that students who had used the cooperative learning method (group investigation technique) exhibited more
cooperative and altruistic behaviours than students in the control group. Slavin (1995) evaluated related literature and
concluded that cooperative learning experiences increase cooperative and altruistic behaviours when compared to
competitive and individual experiences.
In this study, the children in the experimental group also made more progress in listening to instructions than did
children in the control group. The emphasis of active listening and use of active listening materials during the study might be
another factor in this improvement. Curran (1998, p.4) stated that to create an environment for cooperative learning,
children must learn the active listening standard. She also stated that the active listening standard is the most important
standard.
Similarly, children in the experimental group were more willing to engage in the task at hand and fulfilled their individual
responsibilities. With respect to the Participation of each child standard, the children in the experimental group realised that
the quality of their work affected the quality of the group work and that this motivated them to fulfil their responsibilities. In
other words, everyone was willing to work hard for the group because everyone was responsible for completing their fair
share of the work (Curran, 1998, p. 4). Children in the experimental group also demonstrated group awareness when
providing solutions to problems that occurred during the group work.
In the control group, children were sometimes unwilling to achieve their tasks or did not complete their tasks. This may
have occurred because each child felt only a responsibility for his own work and did not feel any responsibility for their
friends tasks.
The cooperative learning lesson plans used in the program allowed the children to develop both their mental and motor
skills as they incorporated literature, art, and mathematics at the same time. These kinds of cooperative activities might be
useful in helping children to better understand concepts.
The teacher in the experimental group stated that her ideas about group work changed positively after this study. The
teacher of the control group stated that the children worked independently on the activities about apportioning, addition
and subtraction, did activities from the books, and more often used concrete materials. From both teachers original answers
to questions about group activities, it can be said that the teachers considered activities in which students sat down together
and fulfilled their duty individually to be group activities. However, these kinds of group work activities do not meet the
standards of cooperative learning. This study clearly shows that not all group work activities should be defined as a
cooperative group work.

378

P.D. Artut / International Journal of Educational Research 48 (2009) 370380

Furthermore, Johnson and Johnson (1994, p. 96) emphasise that not all groups are cooperative groups, and that many
educators who believe that they are using cooperative learning are, in fact, using traditional classroom groups. Cooperation is
not achieved merely by having children sit side by side around the same table to talk with each other as they do their
individual assignments. Cooperation is much more than being physically near other children, discussing material with other
children, helping other children, or sharing material among children, although each of these components is an important part
of cooperative learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1994; Artzt & Newman, 1993).
5. Conclusions
The findings of this study show that cooperative learning methods can be applied to teaching mathematical
concepts in kindergarten. In the control group, the teacher preferred whole-class activities. Group work was not used
when studying academic subjects; it was only preferred for game-like activities that were applied just for fun.
Consequently, no changes were observed in the frequency of sharing, cooperating and managing a task together in these
children.
In the experimental group, children were more likely to cooperate, share, listen to the speaker, and fulfil their
responsibilities in group works after participating in the cooperative learning program. Interviews with the teacher of
this group also supported this finding, and her attitude towards group work had changed positively by the end of the
study. At the beginning of the program, it was difficult for children to achieve the cooperative learning standards, but
these standards were mastered later in the study. The difficulties at the beginning might be overcome by extending the
preparation studies.
Therefore, these kinds of cooperative studies can be suggested for kindergarten students. The following suggestions
should be given to teachers who plan to use this method:
- This method can be easily used in teaching mathematics in the kindergarten curriculum.
- This method is most effective when cooperative learning standards are introduced into the classroom and applied before
beginning the cooperative studies.
- The use of cooperative learning social skills (active listening, happy talk and everyone participating) should be checked
throughout the intervention.

Appendix A. Sample patterning activity

Activity: Patterning.
Objective: Acquiring cooperative behaviours (happy talk, active listening, sharing, collaboration, etc.), encourage the
children to notice the relationships in a pattern.
Class: 18 children.
Group size: 3 persons.
Materials: A storybook related to the sea/ocean, Cartoon animal figures (three for each animal), a music CD (The voice of
the ocean), Scissors, crayons, and background paper (one set per group).
Procedures:
1. The teacher reads a story related to the ocean/sea. The whole class discusses the setting of the story, the animals in the
story and other animals that live in the ocean.
2. Next, the teacher hands out some sea animal figures randomly. The children hang these figures around their necks.
3. The teacher says, Now, we are diving into the ocean. Lets swim under the ocean. The teacher plays a music CD (voice of
ocean preferred). The children move around the classroom to the music.
4. After that, the teacher says, Now, Im going to say the names of the animals on your necks in turn. Listen to me carefully.
The animals I say will get in a line. Sometimes, I might forget whose turn it is. When I forget, Im going to put a cartoon
there and go on. Then, Im going to ask you whose turn it is. For example, when I say, I want the sharks to remind me what
turn it is, the sharks [the three children with the shark figures on their necks] will come together. I want this group to
think very carefully and give the answer together. It is very important to think very carefully and decide on the answer, I
believe that you can succeed. The teacher follows the same patterns in turn. The patterns are as follows:
" Dolphin, dolphin, dolphin, seahorse, seahorse, . . ., crab, crab, crab,
" Whale, shark, whale, . . ., whale, shark,
" Jellyfish, jellyfish, octopus, octopus, turtle, . . ..
The groups will decide together which animal should be used to fill in the blanks.
5. The teacher asks a student from the group that was asked the question to say the answer the group has decided on and to
give their reasons for choosing that answer.

P.D. Artut / International Journal of Educational Research 48 (2009) 370380

379

6. 6. After the questions to all groups are answered, the children from the same group are instructed to sit at a table and form
a pattern by drawing the ocean animals. It is important for a group to work together to decide what pattern they will use.
The pattern output should be a common product of the group.
7. The pattern pictures that the groups have drawn (see below) are shared with the class and hung on the walls of the
classroom.

Appendix B. An example item from the TEMA-3 B form

B26. Metal addition: Sums 59.
Material needed: 10 blocks.
Procedure: Put 2 blocks in your left hand and one block in your right hand. Say, Watch this. I have 2 blocks in this hand, and 1
block in this hand. See? Now close your hand so that the child cannot see the collection. Now I put the blocks together. How much are
2 and 1 altogether? If the child is correct, say, Thats right. I have 3 altogether. I started with 2 here, and 1 here, so there are 3 in my
hands altogether. If the child is wrong, say, No, I have 3 altogether, I started with 2 here and 1 here, so there are 3 in my hands
altogether. Put the blocks back in the pile and say, Lets do some more. In the following problems, use the same procedure described
above.
Trial. Say, I have 5 blocks in this hand, and 3 block in this hand. Now I put them together. How much are 5 and 3 altogether?
References
Al-Halal, A. J. (2001). The effects of individualistic learning and cooperative learning strategies on elementary students mathematics achievement and use of
social skills. Doctoral dissertation. Ohio University [unpublished results].
Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Aronson, E. (2000). Nobody left to hate. The Humanist, 60(3), 1722.
Artut, P. D., & Tarim, K. (2007). Effectiveness of jigsaw II on prospective elementary school teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 35(2), 129141.
Artzt, A. F., & Newman, C. M. (1993). How to use cooperative learning in the mathematics class. Virginia: The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Inc.
Askew, M., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Recent research in mathematics education 516. London: School of Education Kings College.
Avcioglu, H. (2003). Examining the efficiency of a training program based on cooperative learning in teaching social skills to preschool children. In Proceedings of
the Omep World Council and Conference (pp. 490504)Turkey: Kusadas.
Curran, L. (1998). Lessons for little ones mathematics: Cooperative learning lessons. San Clemente: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
Doise, W., & Mugny, G. (1984). The social development of the intellect (A. St. James-Emler & N. Emler Trans.). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Early Years Foundation Stage. (2009). Personal, social and emotional development for 4060+ months. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from http://nationalstrategies.
standards.dcsf.gov.uk/eyfs/taxonomy.
Erdogan, S., & Baran, G. (2006). The study of adaptation test of early mathematics ability-3 (TEMA-3) for 6072 month-old children. Cagdas Egitim Dergisi, 31(332),
3238.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Karns, K. (2001). Enhancing kindergartners mathematical development: Effect of peer-assisted learning strategies. Elementary School
Journal, 101(5), 495511.
Ginsburg, H. P., & Baroody, A. J. (2003). Test of early mathematics ability (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Gomleksiz, M. (1997). Cooperative learning: An experiment on fourth year students mathematics achievement and their friendship relationships. Adana: Baki
Publishing.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R., Sharan, S., & Steinberg, R. (1980). Classroom learning styles and cooperative behavior of elementary school children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 72, 99106.
Howes, C., Unger, O. A., & Matheson, C. C. (1992). The collaborative construction of pretend: Social pretend play functions. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1981). Effects of cooperative and individualistic learning experiences on inter ethnic interaction. Journal of Educational Psychology,
73(3), 444449.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition (2nd ed.). Edina, Minnesota: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning mathematics and cooperative learning lesson plans for teachers. Edina, Minnesota: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, competitive and individualistic learning (4th ed.). Massachusetts: Allen & Bacon.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38(2), 6773.
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis. Retrieved June 15, 2004, from http//www.co-opration.org/
pages/cl-methods.html.
Kagan, S. (1992). Cooperative learning. Paseo Espada: Resources for Teachers Inc.
Karper, J., & Melnick, S. A. (1993). The effectiveness of team accelerated instruction on high achievers in mathematics. Journal of Instructional psychology, 20(1), 49.
Leikin, R., & Zaslavsky, O. (1997). Facilitating student interactions in mathematics in a cooperative learning setting. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education,
28(3), 331354.
Moyles, J. R. (1989). Just playing?: The role and status of play in early childhood education. Milton Keynes England: Open University Press.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles & standards for school mathematics. Retrieved August 30, 2008, from http://my.nctm.org/
standards/.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2001). Mathematics in the preschool. Buffalo, NY: NCTM.
Ramani, G. B. (2005). Cooperative play and problem solving in preschool children. Doctoral dissertation. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh [unpublished results].
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon (Series Ed.), D. Kuhn, R. S. Siegler (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 2. Cognition,
perception, and language (5th ed.) (pp. 679744). New York: Wiley.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W. & Parker, J. (1998). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon (Series Ed.), N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child
psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed.) (pp. 619700). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational
Research, 50(2), 241271.
Siegler, R. S. (2003). Implications of cognitive science research for mathematics education. In J. Kilpatrick, W. B. Martin, & D. E. Schifter (Eds.), A research companion
to principles and standards for school mathematics (pp. 219233). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Slavin, R. E. (1987). Cooperative learning and the cooperative school. Educational Leadership, 45(3), 713.
Slavin, R. E. (1990). Learning together. American School Board Journal, 177(8), 2223.

380

P.D. Artut / International Journal of Educational Research 48 (2009) 370380

Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Slavin, R. E., & Karweit, N. L. (1985). Effects of whole-class, ability-grouped, and individualized instruction on mathematics achievement. American Educational
Research Journal, 22(3), 351367.
Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Leavey, M. (1984). Effects of team-assisted individualization on the mathematics achievement of academically handicapped and
nonhandicapped students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(5), 813819.
Slavin, R. E., Leavey, M. B., & Madden, N. A. (1984). Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction: Effects on student mathematics achievement,
attitudes, and behaviors. The Elementary School Journal, 84(4), 409422.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidel, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics. Norteridge: HarperCollins College Publishers.
Tarim, K. (2003). Effectiveness of cooperative learning method on teaching mathematics and a meta analytic study for cooperative learning method. Doctoral
dissertation. Adana, Turkey: Cukurova University [unpublished results].
Tarim, K., & Artut, P. D. (2004). Teaching addition and subtraction skills to preschool children with cooperative learning method. Eurasian Journal of Educational
Research, 5(17), 221236.
Tarim, K., & Akdeniz, F. (2008). The effects of cooperative learning on Turkish elementary students mathematics achievement and attitude towards mathematics
using TAI and STAD methods. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 67(1), 7791.
Vermette, P., Harper, L., & DiMillo, S. (2004). Cooperative and collaborative learning with 48 year olds: How does research support teachers practice? Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 31(2), 130134.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Williams-Jones, T. (2004). An investigation of the use of cooperative learning techniques with a sample of children (04) across traditional daycare and playgroup
learning communities. Doctoral dissertation. Chicago: University of Loyola [unpublished results].
Yildiz, V. (1998). The effects of cooperative learning and traditional teaching methods on pre-school childrens mathematical achievement and teachers ideas
about the present applications. Doctoral dissertation. Turkey: University of Dokuz Eylul [unpublished results].