It could be gleaned from table 6 that under low family income (1,0005,000), the item number 6 I respect the

opinion of others got the highest

computed mean of 4.62 which is interpreted as very high cooperative
learning. On the other hand, item number 11 We have a time for tutor each
other got the lowest computed mean of 3.38 which is interpreted as
average.
On the other hand, the family whose belong to the highest family
income (6000 above) the item number 1 I enjoy being with my classmate
got the highest computed mean of 4.43 which interpreted as very high level
of cooperative learning. And the item number 11 we have a time to tutor
each other got the lowest computed mean of 3.23 which is interpreted as
average of cooperative learning.
Daly et al. (1994) stated that students from higher income families are
more comfortable asking questions and actively involving themselves in
classroom instruction. These observations present a challenge to Strong,
Silver, and Robinsons (1995) who positioned that students engagement in
the learning process promotes student to success, curiosity and originality,
as well as satisfying relationships, regardless of socioeconomic status.
Generally ,the cooperative learning of teacher education students as
according to their family income ,the item number 1 I enjoy being with my
classmate ranked no. 1 among cooperative learning questionnaire of
teacher education student which got the highest computed weighted
average mean of 4.48 which means very high. On the other hand, the item
we are assessing prior knowledge each other ranked no. 20 got the lowest
weighted average mean of 3.31 which interpreted as average.
It could be gleaned from table 6 that the respondent who belong to
family with low monthly income have computed weighted arithmetic mean of
3.95 which has an interpretation of high cooperative learning while the
respondent who belong to family who belong to family with high monthly

income have computed weighted arithmetic mean of 3.79 which has an

interpretation of high cooperative learning. Therefore, family income is a
contributory factor as regard to the cooperative learning of teacher
education students.
One study found that only 36 percent of low-income parents were
involved in three or more school activities on a regular basis, compared with
59 percent of parents above the poverty line (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 2000). Goodman (2004) suggested that family income may
relate more to differences in coping styles and other interactional skills. The
data implies that poor families tend to have much quality time and
interactions to their siblings due to the occupations they have compared to
those with rich families who tend to be very busy on their careeres and work
place.
In summary the overall mean of cooperative learning of teacher
education students as regard to their monthly family income has computed
mean of 3.87 which is interpreted as high cooperative learning.

Table 7 shows the cooperative learning level of the Teacher Education

Students when grouped and as a whole