Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to examine the effects of collaborative
learning strategies on formulating solutions to linear programming word problems
that were designed to incorporate problem-solving skills. Forty-six students majoring
in business at a small southwest college in Virginia participated in the study. After an
instruction session, a study period, and a question and answer discussion,
participants completed the test instrument based upon random assignment to three
treatment groups. These included individual study with individual test taking (control),
paired study with individual test taking, and paired study with paired test taking. All
participants returned in 17 days to complete a posttest individually having received no
further instruction in linear programming theory.
The following null hypothesis was examined: No differences in treatment
means measuring problem-solving abilities would be found based on students' test
and posttest scores using two treatment groups of collaborative study, with
collaborative or individual test taking, and a control group of individual study with
individual test taking. After satisfying the assumptions of no difference in ability in the
treatment groups, establishing significant influence of ability on test score and posttest score variables, and establishing homogeneity of regression, an analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA) was used to test the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis was
rejected. Treatment had a significant effect on the variance for the test score variable,
F = 3.92, p < .05, and for the posttest score variable, F = 4.44, p < .05. Newman-Keuls
post hoc test showed significant differences in the adjusted means of the test score
variable between the individual study with individual test taking group (72.22) and the
paired study with paired test taking group (87.86). For the posttest score variable, the
Newman-Keuls post hoc test revealed significant differences between the adjusted
means of the individual study with individual test taking group (36.25) and the paired
study with individual test taking group (59.20), and between the adjusted means of the
individual study with individual test taking group (36.25) and the paired study with
paired test taking group (55.77). Implications of findings and recommendations for
further research were discussed.
|
