Color profile: Disabled

Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

Students’ Perceptions of Learning

Geography through Group Investigation
in Singapore

Ivy Geok-Chin Tan

National Institute of Education, Singapore

Shlomo Sharan
Tel Aviv University, Israel

Christine Kim-Eng Lee

National Institute of Education, Singapore
This study examines students’ perceptions of the Group Investigation method of coop-
erative learning. A total of 142 students (62 low-achievers and 80 high-achievers) from
two schools worked in cooperative learning groups during a period of over six weeks
using the Group Investigation method. At the end of the study, they were asked to write
their perceptions of the Group Investigation method. Out of a total of 955 statements
made by all the students, two-thirds (652) were positive statements and one-third (303)
were negative statements. Both the high-achieving and low-achieving groups made
twice as many positive statements as negative ones. The students’ written statements of
their perceptions and experience of learning with the Group Investigation method
provided insights into their attitudes and orientations toward school learning. Four
main categories of positive statements emerged. One category indicated that the Group
Investigation method was interesting, fun and effective, while the other categories
reflected the students’ positive perception of their social relationships, learning skills
and academic achievement in terms of deeper understanding of the topics investigated.
On the negative side, students stated that they would like the teacher to continue with
their normal teaching method, that is, to present academic material to them. The
students thought that the Group Investigation method was time consuming and they
were concerned about their coming examinations and syllabus coverage. Another
cluster of statements was about their inability to learn as much from the new method of
learning, and they encountered problems while working in groups, such as how to
conduct their research and how to make their presentations.

Keywords: cooperative learning, group investigation, group work, motivation, achieve-

ment, students’ perception

Introduction
The term ‘cooperative learning’ is a general title for a set of classroom teaching
methods where students work in small groups to help one another study
academic subject matter (Slavin, 1991). The need to cooperate as members in a
small group is the cornerstone of cooperative learning. Research has docu-
mented the positive effects of cooperative learning. Extensive reviews and
meta-analyses of research have demonstrated that cooperative learning leads to

1038-2046/05/04 0261-16 $20.00/0 © 2005 I.G-C. Tan et al.

International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education Vol. 14, No. 4, 2005

261

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

Learning Geography Through Group Investigation in Singapore
10 April 2006 13:06:17

IRGEE 180
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

262 International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education

higher achievement at different grade levels and in different subject areas than
the traditional form of classroom teaching (Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Johnson et
al., 1983; Johnson et al., 1981; Qin et al., 1995; Slavin, 1980, 1983, 1991). Studies
have also shown that cooperative learning exerts positive effects on a wide range
of social-affective outcome, including improved peer and cross-ethnic relations;
increased students’ self-esteem and motivation and improved attitudes towards
school, the subject matter and learning (Johnson et al., 1981; Johnson & Johnson,
2002; Nastasi & Clements, 1991; Shachar & Sharan, 1994; Sharan, 1980; Sharan &
Shachar, 1988; Slavin, 1991, 1995).
In addition to the dependent variables discussed above, another topic has
caught the attention of some researchers, namely, how students perceive and
evaluate cooperative learning. What do the students think about these ‘alterna-
tive’ ways of teaching and learning and what do they have to say about it? These
researchers frequently gathered information from students after the conclusion
of an experiment or intervention that lasted for two or four weeks, or sometimes
as long as two or three months. Students were interviewed (Ahuja, 1994; Jackson,
1994; Mulryan, 1994), asked to respond to questionnaires (McManus & Gettinger,
1996; Slesinski, 1998; Whicker et al., 1997), or asked to write open-ended
comments or self-evaluations on what they had experienced while participating
in cooperative learning activities (Mueller & Fleming, 2001).
Whicker et al. (1997) asked 31 11th- and 12th-grade students to identify what
they liked and did not like about working in cooperative groups. Most of the
students indicated that they liked working in groups and appreciated getting
help from each other, especially when learning complex or difficult concepts.
Some students were not in favour of having permanent groups and they
suggested alternating group membership. Mueller and Fleming (2001) obtained
sixth- and seventh-grade students’ (n = 29) perceptions of what they had learned
after a five-week science project conducted with cooperative groups. Students’
responses to the written self-evaluation were classified into four categories:
acquisition of scientific knowledge, practical skills, group cooperative skills and
the enjoyment of the challenge of studying science. Students reported that they
learned better when they were able to do something and not just read from the
textbook. They were able to learn from their mistakes in the hands-on project and
that made learning more exciting and real. Mulryan (1994) analysed fifth- and
sixth-grade students’ (n = 48) perceptions of cooperative small-group work in
mathematics. She also interviewed the teachers. There was general agreement
between the students and teachers regarding the purpose and benefits of cooper-
ative small group instruction regarding the opportunity for collaboration,
students’ mutual assistance, and the opportunity for social interaction. The
high-achievers were more concerned than low-achievers with getting correct
solutions to cooperative learning tasks and they had a more complex under-
standing of cooperative group work than the low-achievers.
A total of 26 teachers and 38 third-grade students responded to questionnaires
on teachers’ and students’ evaluation of group learning in McManus and
Gettinger’s study (1996). However, the types of cooperative learning methods
used by the teachers were not mentioned. Both the teachers and students generally
reported that there were improvements in students’ academic performance, social
behaviour and attitudes as a result of working in groups. Jackson (1994) examined

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

10 April 2006 13:06:17
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

Learning Geography Through Group Investigation in Singapore 263

cooperative learning at the university level. After two terms of cooperative

learning, the majority of the students found that the cooperative environment
was effective and enjoyable. They expressed preference for the cooperative
learning method environment over other learning environments. The students
also claimed that cooperative learning improved their social and interpersonal
skills. However, Jackson (1994: 175) also reported that there was still a hard-core
number of students who were not enthusiastic about cooperative learning. A
minority of students also felt uncomfortable in the new cooperative learning
environment. One part of Slesinski’s (1998) study was to examine the students’
understanding of cooperative learning. Results from surveys and interviews
showed that students’ perception of cooperative learning included teamwork,
efficient work completion, conflict resolution and preparing for the future.
‘Teamwork’ and ‘working as a team’ were the students’ most frequent responses
to denote positive aspects of cooperative learning. Included in this theme were
responses of ‘helping each other’, ‘working together’ and ‘participating equally
with the group’. ‘Efficient work completion’ or ‘completing the task within time’
was another frequent response to the positive aspects of cooperative learning.
When asked about the negative aspects of cooperative learning, ‘conflict and
resolution’ was the main theme. Students also listed arguments, fights and
disagreements. Ahuja (1994) interviewed six students who had been exposed to a
cooperative learning experience. Most of the students reported that working in
groups made the task ‘interesting, better, and more fun, and helpful in under-
standing, completing class and home assignments, getting better grades, and
making science less boring’. Only one out of the six students interviewed
reported that group learning was irritating, difficult and unfair and she would
rather work alone.
Of central importance from these studies summarised above is the fact that the
students’ reactions to cooperative learning were invited by the investigators.
Students had many observations to make about the method of teaching itself but
their opinions are rarely solicited. Most of the time, students rarely experience
any teaching method other than the traditional whole-class method. But specific
and focused remarks by students are possible when they can compare their daily
routine with a different kind of experience with teaching and learning. Coopera-
tive learning differs sufficiently from that routine to have students notice the
difference and react to it in a variety of ways.
Although the above-mentioned investigators have performed this kind of
evaluation on students’ perception of learning in cooperative groups, few
reports of these data appear in the study pertaining to the Group Investigation
method of cooperative learning. One such study was done in Israel (Sharan &
Hertz-Lazarowitz, 1980, personal communication), but was not published in
English.
Group Investigation (Sharan & Sharan, 1992, 1999) requires the students to
form small interest groups, plan and implement their investigation, synthesise
the group members’ findings and make a presentation to the entire class. There is
minimal direct instruction by the teacher who introduces the general topic of
study and provides a wide variety of resources to help students conduct their
investigation. Students are very much responsible for their own learning.
External rewards are de-emphasised and the method of teaching seeks to involve

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

10 April 2006 13:06:17
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

264 International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education

students so that they will experience a great deal of intrinsic motivation to pursue
their study.
Implementation of Group Investigation proceeds through a sequence of six
stages or phases that serve as general guidelines for teachers in the management
of this instructional process (Sharan & Sharan, 1992): Stage 1: The teacher pres-
ents a multi-faceted problem to the whole class often derived from the
curriculum, and students generate questions for inquiry. Stage 2: Groups plan
their investigation: they choose questions from the list generated earlier and
determine resources need for the investigation. Stage 3: Groups carry out their
investigation: they locate information from a variety of sources, and report their
findings to their groupmates. Stage 4: Groups plan how to present to teach their
classmates the essence of what they learned. Stage 5: Groups make their presenta-
tions: one aspect of the general problem they have investigated is emphasised.
Stage 6: Teacher and students evaluate the projects: they consider the final
product, knowledge acquired, the process of investigation, and individuals’
experiences during the investigation.
The present study seeks to evaluate what students have to say after studying
six weeks with this project-based form of cooperative learning. A second focus of
the study was to examine differences between high and low-achievers in their
response to learning in the Group Investigation method. Group Investigation
differs markedly from the prevailing instructional patterns.

Method
Participants
Four classes of secondary two (Grade 8, age 14) geography students (n = 142) in
two schools were taught two units of geography using the Group Investigation
method of instruction. Two classes were from the high-achieving classes (n = 80)
and two classes were from the low-achieving classes (n = 62). The high-achieving
students are those from the Express stream in secondary schools while the
low-achieving students are those from the Normal Academic stream.
In Singapore, students at primary 6 (Grade 6, age 12) take the Primary School
Leaving Examination (PSLE) to assess the students’ suitability for secondary
education and to place them in the appropriate secondary school course so as to
match their learning pace and ability. Majority of the students with higher PSLE
results are streamed into the Express stream which is a four-year secondary
course and the less able students are streamed into the Normal Academic stream
which is a five-year secondary course.

Questionnaire
A questionnaire was given out to the students at the end of the six weeks of
studying by the Group Investigation method. It consisted of an open-ended
question:

You have been learning quite differently using the Group-Investigation

method. We would like to know about your experiences and feelings
towards this method of learning.

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

10 April 2006 13:06:17
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

Learning Geography Through Group Investigation in Singapore 265

Students were asked to write about their experiences and feelings about the
Group Investigation method in the spaces provided on the paper.

Analysis of statements
The written statements yielded large quantities of information. Data analysis of
these statements started with data reduction, that is, the process of selecting,
focusing and simplifying the raw data (Bakeman & Gottman, 1986; Miles &
Huberman, 1984, 1994). The first author and another assistant worked independ-
ently to identify key words and phrases in the written statements. Several key words
and phrases that occurred frequently formed a category: 91.3% agreement between
the evaluators was reached in extracting the key words, phrases and statements. The
reliability or degree of agreement between evaluators was computed by dividing
the number of agreements by the total number of agreements plus disagreements
(Bakeman & Gottman, 1986; Miles & Huberman, 1984, 1994).

Results
A total of 142 written responses were obtained from the students in the experi-
mental classes, 80 of these were from high-achieving classes and 62 were from
low-achieving classes. The responses were written in an essay form. High-
achieving students wrote an average 84.4 words per student (a total of 6754
words), and low-achievers wrote an average 52.0 words per student (a total of
3225 of words). The high-achievers tended to provide longer responses than the
low-achievers, and to provide a more elaborate discussion of their feelings
towards to the Group Investigation method. These 142 students’ essays provided
the information from which the data presented in Table 1 were generated.
The written responses contained 955 statements, 651 statements or 68.2% of
which were positive and 304 or 31.8% were negative statements. High-achievers
wrote an average 8.1 statements per student (a total of 651 statements), of which
450 or 69.1% were positive and 201 or 30.9% were negative statements.
Low-achievers recorded an average of 4.9 statements per student (total of 304
statements) of which 202 or 66.5% were positive statements and 102 or 33.5%
were negative statements. Both groups of students had more positive than nega-
tive perception of the Group Investigation method. A detailed description
follows of the categories of students’ positive as well as negative perception of
the Group Investigation method.

Students’ positive statements about Group Investigation

First and foremost, noteworthy is the fact that the students made twice as
many positive statements as they did negative statements. For the students’ posi-
tive responses to Group Investigation, four main categories or clusters of
statements emerged as significant. These included their: (1) direct positive evalu-
ations of the Group Investigation method, (2) positive perceptions of the extent
of their achievement in terms of increased knowledge, understanding and
learning, (3) positive perceptions of their social relationships and (4) positive
perceptions of their learning skills and ability to pursue knowledge stemming
from the Group Investigation method. The percentages reported here made by
the high-achieving and low-achieving groups were computed based on the total

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

10 April 2006 13:06:17
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

266 International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education

Table 1 Statements of high- and low-achieving students about the Group Investigation
method

Keywords/statements High-achievers’ Low-achievers’

statements statements
n (%) n (%)
Positive statements
1. Direct positive evaluations of G-I (e.g. 138 21.2 71 23.4
interesting, fun, good, effective)
2. Achievement (e.g. increased knowledge, and 73 11.2 33 10.9
understanding)
3. Social relations (e.g. teamwork, friendship, 73 11.2 51 16.8
cooperation)
4. Learning skills (e.g. independent learning, 143 22.0 33 10.8
presentation)
5. Others 23 3.5 14 4.6
Negative statements
1. Direct negative evaluations of G-I (e.g. not a 23 3.5 20 6.6
good method, difficult, cause confusion)
2. Want a teacher or a normal lesson (e.g. need 36 5.5 18 5.9
teacher to explain, prefer normal lesson)
3. Concern with exams/syllabus/textbooks 27 4.2 8 2.6
(e.g. demands of exams, syllabus coverage)
4. Time consuming (e.g. insufficient time, less 20 3.1 8 2.6
time for study)
5. Achievement (e.g. cannot learn much, only 38 5.8 10 3.3
know one topic)
6. Social relations (e.g. arguments, lack of 10 1.5 26 8.6
cooperation)
7. Learning skills (e.g. presentation problems, 43 6.7 12 3.9
research problems)
8. Others 4 0.6 – –
Positive statements 450 69.1 202 66.5
Negative statements 201 30.9 102 33.5
Total 651 100 304 100

number of statements made by each group. High- and low-achievers did not
differ significantly in their overall percentage of positive statements (high-
achievers = 69.1%, low-achievers = 66.5%).
The first category that emerged consisted of key words and statements that
expressed the students’ direct positive evaluations of the Group Investigation
method. Students described the Group Investigation method as ‘fun’, ‘interest-
ing’, ‘good’ or ‘effective’. Some students stated that they ‘liked’ and ‘enjoyed’ the

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

10 April 2006 13:06:18
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

Learning Geography Through Group Investigation in Singapore 267

new method of learning. This single category formed the largest percentage of
statements made by both the high- (21.2% of their total number of statements)
and low-achievers (23.4% of their total number of statements). The following
statements are some examples from the students’ written responses that fall into
this category:
I think that using this method is a fun way of studying about the subject, as
we go into further details about the topic we are investigating.

It is interesting and really makes us want to learn more and enjoy Geog-
raphy as a subject.

I feel that it is much more effective than the traditional way of teaching.
A second category that surfaced from the students’ perceptions was about the
positive effects of Group Investigation on their academic achievement and
learning. Both high- (11.2% of their total statements made) and low-achievers
(10.9% of their total statements made) stated that the Group Investigation
method had enabled them to ‘learn better’, ‘learn new things’, ‘learn a lot’, and
‘learn deeply into the topic’. They stated that the method had helped them
‘increase their understanding’ and ‘widen their knowledge’. For instance, some
of these statements in this category are:
I find that I understand the topic better when we do the topic in a group.

I feel that in this way, we learn more and deeply into the topic as we find the
information ourselves, and of course after reading and understanding, we
present it to the class.

It is also good as it emphasises on the subject we are working on and thus

we are able to gain in-depth knowledge.
Both groups of students indicated that the Group Investigation method
promoted better social relationships and friendship ties. They expressed in their
written statements that they learned more about cooperation and the spirit of
teamwork. The terms ‘teamwork’ and ‘working as a team’ were among the
students’ responses that occurred frequently. Students’ responses such as
‘helping each other’, ‘working together’, ‘increase friendship ties’, ‘learned to
cooperate’ were all included in this category. It is interesting to note that the
low-achievers (16.8% of their total statements made) highlighted this benefit
derived from their experience with the Group Investigation method more than
the high-achievers (11.2% of their total number of statements made). Below are
some quotations from the students’ statements that form this category:
Teacher-pupil and friendship ties also became closer.

The program taught us team work and co-operation between the group
members.

I feel that this investigation gives us the idea of teamwork. Teamwork is

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

10 April 2006 13:06:18
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

268 International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education

important in order to establish a good relationship between group

members and to have satisfying results at the end of the investigation.
Statements on learning skills acquired in the process of the investigation were
also mentioned repeatedly in the students’ responses. Many students drew
attention to their experience of independent learning (i.e. ‘have developed a
sense of independence’, ‘investigate the topic ourselves’), process of presenta-
tion (i.e. ‘brush up on presentation skills’, ‘gained experience in presentation’)
and information gathering (i.e. ‘find information’, ‘gather information from the
Internet’, ‘gather information beyond the textbook’). High-achievers (22.0% of
their total statements made) contributed a larger percentage of their statements
in this category than low-achievers (10.8% of their total statements made). Exam-
ples of some comments made by the students’ on the skills gained through the
process of investigation are:
This method allows us to further understand the topic through the interac-
tive way rather than just reading the textbook. Also, it allows us to gain
experience in presentation and it helps us develop a sense of independence,
not relying heavily on the teacher.

From my own group, we have gathered information on our chosen topic on

the Internet as well as other references such as books and encyclopedias.
We had even made up an experiment to show how smoke contributes to
acid rain but the experiment failed. From this, we learn from our mistakes
and we went to search for the correct answers.

I think this Group Investigation method is very effective in our future

studies and working life. It is a very good experience for us! I’ve learnt quite
a lot from this experience. Since, we need to do a lot of project work when
we enter junior colleges or poly-technics, this experience has truly taught
me the different ways for presenting our projects.

Students’ negative statements about Group Investigation

Seven negative categories of statements were identified made by both high-
and low-achievers (direct negative evaluation, want teacher-taught lessons, concern
about ‘coverage’, time consuming, achievement, learning skills). Although only
one-third (304 out of a total of 955 statements) of all the statements made by the
students were negative in nature, they provide a number of insights into the
students’ psychology of classroom learning. High-achievers and low-achievers
did not differ significantly in the percentages of negative statements made
(high-achievers = 30.9%, low-achievers = 33.5%).
Some students stated that the Group Investigation method ‘was not good’,
‘less effective’, ‘less beneficial to their studies’ as they need to ‘study hard on their
own’ or ‘revise their work at home’. Some stated that they were ‘confused’ and
that it was ‘difficult’ or ‘troublesome’ to study. Some of the low-achieving
students commented that they were ‘uncomfortable to study like this’ and ‘do
not like the method’ at all. Noteworthy is the finding that the low-achieving
students expressed a higher percentage of statements in this category. The
low-achieving students had 6.6% of their statements in this category while the

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

10 April 2006 13:06:18
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

Learning Geography Through Group Investigation in Singapore 269

high-achieving students 3.5% of their statements were of this kind. The following
statements were made by the students:
I do not like this method and I don’t think many people benefit from it.

To me, this method is not good for the students. It will not benefit the
students as the students would not pay attention when the other classmates
present the work. As a result, they will not learn anything.

It is not very effective learning method as some of the presentations lack

information.
The students also expressed their preference for ‘normal’ lessons or for their
teachers to teach (i.e. instead of having to investigate a topic). Both high- and
low-achievers (5.5% and 5.9% of their respective statements made) said that they
preferred to have the ‘teacher teaching in class’ or that they preferred ‘the old
method’. The students perceived that they ‘learn more from teachers’ and that
the ‘notes from teachers is better’. Another reason given was that they did not
trust their friends teaching them because they perceived their peers to ‘give
plain, stupid answers’. In short, ‘G-I isn’t better than teachers’. According to the
students, ‘teachers know more than them’ and teachers should teach first, revise
and summarise, and only ‘teacher’s teaching may push up their grades’.
Comments such as the following are examples of statements in this category:
I think that it (the Group Investigation method) doesn’t help us to learn as
our friends are whom we don’t trust more than teachers. We believe more
in what teachers say than what our friends deliver. Therefore G-I isn’t
better than teachers.

I prefer the old method that the teacher uses transparency to let us copy the
notes.
A category of statements emerged that reflects the students’ concern for ‘cov-
ering’ the syllabus, textbook and exams. The students expressed their ‘need to
cope with other subjects’ and they were unable to concentrate in preparing for
the coming examination. Some stated that the Group Investigation method was
‘not suitable for studying for the examinations’ and that they ‘must re-read the
textbook’ and had less time to prepare for their tests. The high-achievers had 27
or 4.2% of the total statements made in this category, while the low-achievers had
8 or 2.6% of the total statements in this category. Some typical statements in this
category are:
If we present things that are out of our textbook syllabus, what’s the use of
presenting? If topics coming out (for the examinations) are just from the
textbook?

I still feel shortchanged being compared to other classes that are not
involved in this activity. They get to concentrate more. But for us, we had to
deal both the school and the project and unable to concentrate in preparing
for our exams.

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

10 April 2006 13:06:18
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

270 International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education

I think this method could be used as a source for learning something extra
about the topic but not suitable for a method to be used for studying and
then go for the school exams. I could say that this method of learning may
not work well for those who have the mentality of doing it for the sake of
doing or for the marks. In conclusion, I would say that I would do it as an
extra source of method to get some extra information, but not for studying
to sit for the exam.

Closely related to this category is the perception that the Group Investigation
method was ‘time consuming’. The students (3.1% of high-achievers’ statements
and 2.6% of low-achievers’ statements) highlighted that the new method of
learning was: ‘time consuming’ and ‘takes up lots of time’ and it was ‘difficult to
find time to get together’ and they had ‘less time to study on their own’ as can be
gathered from the following two statements:

However, the downside is that more time has to be spent when our
schedule is already so tight. . . . We also have less time to study on our own
and less time for revision.

I sincerely feel that this method is not going to work in our education
system. Although, it is true to explore new ways of teaching, this is not
going to work for us. There are too many chapters in our syllabus to be
covered using this method. Furthermore, much time is needed for presen-
tations and this leaves us with less time for our tests and exams.

In terms of negative effects on academic achievement, 38 or 5.8% of the state-

ments made by the high-achievers said that they ‘did not really learn’ with the
Group Investigation method. Some stated that they were not able to ‘absorb’ the
information presented by other groups of students and that they could only
understand the topic that they were presenting. Some low-achievers (3.3% of
their statements made) commented that they did not learn much as they did not
really understand some of the presentations made by their peers. Several
students expressed their lack of security when they only research one sub-topic
and have to depend on other groups of students for information on other topics.
For example:

But then, we would only understand our topic and not others. Because we
did not do any research on it.

It is unfortunately bad as group work only allows us to concentrate on one

topic in particular only and thus it does not give us much background
knowledge on the other topics that the other groups do.

Another category of statements related to the students’ social interaction with

their peers while working in cooperative groups. Low-achieving students in
particular noted that they had difficulties working in groups. They had 8.6% of
their total statements in this category, that included statements to the effect that
they had ‘quarrels’ or ‘arguments’ and had to deal with their group mates who
were not cooperative. Only 1.5% of the statements of the high-achievers

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

10 April 2006 13:06:18
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

Learning Geography Through Group Investigation in Singapore 271

highlighted this category of responses. Comments such as the ones below

support this category of statements:
But one thing I don’t like about this is when there are some lazy people in
the group who do not cooperate with us.

In the process, we had quarrels with one another, disagreeing with each
other and making everyone not happy.
Students from both high- (6.7% of their total statements) and low-achieving
groups (3.9% of their total statements) identified some problems they encoun-
tered while doing their research and about the presentations they made. Some
pointed out that it was ‘hard to find information’ and that they ‘did not know
what to discuss, what to do or find’. Some of the students went on to comment on
the students’ presentations. They criticised the fact that some of the presentations
were ‘too long’, ‘lack information’, ‘too detailed’, or ‘not clear’. They commented
that they could not get ‘satisfactory answers from the students’ making the
presentations. The following quotations are examples of statements in this
category:
. . . the disadvantage is if a presentation is lack of information about the
topics, we will get lesser information from their presentation and thus, we
do not get sufficient information from various groups.

Although some presentations are interesting, they sometimes are not easy
to comprehend. Too detailed presentations make it worst. Different group,
different thinking, different presentation resulted in leading everyone into
different paths of understanding.
In summary, the students had both positive and negative perceptions of the
Group Investigation method. There were twice as many positive statements as
negative statements. Both the high-achievers and low-achievers gave the same
proportion of positive and negative statements. Both groups had two-thirds
positive statements and one-third negative statements. However, there seemed
to be a slight difference between the perceptions of the two groups of students.
The high-achievers were more concerned than low-achievers with the learning
skills involved in Group Investigation, be it in the positive or negative sense. The
low-achievers were more concerned about social relations than the high-
achievers.

Discussion
Considering the remarkable quantity of the number of statements made (955
statements made by 138 students), they can be considered as a reliable source of
information about these students’ perceptions of the Group Investigation
method of classroom learning. Even more important and relevant to the interpre-
tation of the students’ perceptions is the content of their statements and not only
their quantity. In fact, the content of the students’ statements provided valuable
insights into their entire ‘psychology of classroom learning’ that quite certainly
developed over the course of their years in school.

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

10 April 2006 13:06:18
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

272 International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education

The students were very positively impressed by the Group Investigation

method. Over two-thirds (652 statements out of a total of 955 statements) of all
the statements written by students at the end of the experiment showed the
extent to which they enjoyed this form of learning and that they appreciated how
much they increased their knowledge. They were pleased with the improved
relations with their classmates as well as improved learning skills that they
seldom used in class. Less than one-third of the statements made by all of the
students were negative and critical in nature.
The salient finding about the students’ statements is the expression of their
enjoyment of, and good feeling about, their experience with Group Investiga-
tion. That is equally true for both high- and low-achievers in this study. The sheer
percentage of statements expressing this sentiment (21.2% of total statements
made by high-achievers and 23.4% of total statements made by low-achievers) is
quite remarkable. It is the single largest subcategory of statements, whether posi-
tive or negative, made by students. Students very infrequently describe school
learning as having been interesting, enjoyable and fun (Sarason, 1983). However,
the students’ enjoyment of the process of learning through Group Investigation
as reported in their evaluation revealed a very positive atmosphere in the
classroom.
Other dimensions of students’ positive perceptions of the Group Investigation
method include their sense of having increased their knowledge and under-
standing of what they learned, improved social relations with their classmates
and the acquisition of skills for independent learning. The latter category was
also mentioned in 22% of the statements made by high-achievers and in 10.8% of
the statements made by low-achievers. All of the categories of positive state-
ments made by the students coincide with the explicit aims of the Group
Investigation method regarding intrinsic motivation that indicates genuine
interest in the substance of the material under study. The benefits derived by the
students from their exposure to the Group Investigation method amply support
the use of this approach to teaching and learning as an important alternative to
the currently dominant whole-class method.
Both high and low-achievers also wrote statements critical of the Group Inves-
tigation method each group producing an almost identical quantity of such
statements (high = 30.9%, low = 33.6%). Some of these statements compared
Group Investigation to the whole-class method which the students were used to,
some were about the Group Investigation method itself. As noted, the negative
statements (304) comprised a little less than one-third of the total number of state-
ments (955) recorded by all the students who participated in the Group
Investigation classes.
The reservations and criticisms of the Group Investigation method expressed
by the students in this study reflect their internalised norms of traditional class-
room learning that clashed with those of the Group Investigation method. The
‘psychology of classroom learning’ expressed in students’ negative evaluations
of the Group Investigation method includes the fundamental premise that the
teachers are the source of knowledge, and the acquisition of knowledge by
students is dependent on the teacher and on the teacher’s authority. Students’
dependency on teachers for learning is probably the single most serious conse-
quence of traditional classroom instruction that deserves much attention from

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

10 April 2006 13:06:18
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

Learning Geography Through Group Investigation in Singapore 273

educators and the educational system. Students noted as a negative feature of

Group Investigation that this approach requires them ‘to study hard on their
own’, ‘to read up by ourselves’, it is ‘much more difficult’ and so forth. Such
statements undoubtedly convey the message that the students have limited
responsibility for their own learning. The burden of preparing, analysing, under-
standing and presenting knowledge rests almost exclusively with the teacher.
There is little or no room for student initiative in the students’ perspective on
classroom learning. When those conditions change, such as the introduction of a
teaching method that requires student initiative and shifts much responsibility
for teaching/learning from the teacher to the students, they are unhappy and
somewhat anxious.
Students also said repeatedly that they trusted the teacher more than they
trusted themselves regarding their understanding of academic materials. Their
many years of dependence on the teacher for learning had somewhat under-
mined their self-confidence about learning on their own and their trust in their
peers’ ideas and understanding. When classroom teachers, most probably
unintentionally, assume sole intellectual authority about knowledge, it inevi-
tably removes authority and self-confidence from their students. This is
another manifestation of ‘behavioural regularities’ (Sarason, 1996) that form the
organisational structure of the process of traditional schooling and its prevailing
norms. Students’ confidence in their ability to learn individually or with their
peers should be systematically cultivated by schools so that psychological
passivity and dependency on teachers for learning should not reach the undesir-
able degree reflected in the students’ statements collected in this study.
Other negative statements deal with the question of how much time is
required by the Group Investigation method for learning specified topics in the
syllabus, or, in other words, what is the pace of covering the syllabus and how
fast can students understand the academic materials? The reason why students
were concerned with the issue of the pace of learning derives from their need to
prepare for tests in other subjects and for forthcoming examinations.
Preoccupation with how fast they are ‘learning’ can be understood only by
reference to the prevailing norms of classroom instruction that have so
completely shaped students’ expectations and values. They are not psychologi-
cally free to pursue the investigation of the topic assigned. They are mentally
pressured by the standard procedures of having to cope with the demands of
tests and examinations. Current evaluation norms that emphasise the speed of
learning as well as the sheer quantity of material covered are not related to
learning by investigation. It is well known that students of all ages display vast
differences in the speed with which they can learn different kinds or quantities of
academic subject matter (Wolf et al., 1991). Students should be given a much
broader range of possibilities in terms of the time they require to complete school
assignments and projects, including examinations. In fact, in most schools, all
students are required to complete the same test or examinations in the same
amount of time. That norm of traditional schooling imposes a destructive unifor-
mity on the pace of students’ mental processes that cannot help but stifle genuine
mental effort invested in thinking and creativity (Goodlad, 1984; Schmuck &
Schmuck, 2001). These ideas must be weighed when thinking about the relative
virtues or shortcomings of the Group Investigation approach to cooperative

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

10 April 2006 13:06:18
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

274 International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education

learning compared to the whole-class method. Considerable attention should be

given to the entire question of the pace of instruction and its effects on student
learning and attitudes toward schooling.
Students also commented about the nature of their social interactions with
peers during cooperative group work. The students complained that their
groupmates argued with one another, failed to cooperate with each other, did
not contribute to the group’s work, talked out of turn, played around, and did not
concentrate on the group tasks. What is revealing about the students’ evaluation
statements is actually more about their lack of skills for cooperating with their
peers than it is about the shortcomings of the Group Investigation method. Tradi-
tional teaching views classrooms as collections of individuals rather than groups
of people who should relate to one another (Schmuck & Schmuck, 2001). The
individualistic nature of the classroom isolates students from one another and
does not provide them with opportunity to acquire the skills of constructive
interaction.
Their criticism also suggests that the classes where the Group Investigation
method was employed did not have much opportunity to practise the skills of
group interaction. Cooperative group work in the classroom will generate many
problems for the students unless teachers have the time at their disposal to provide
the proper training for their students, and not launch directly into a Group Investi-
gation. Students gradually acquire considerable skill for performing high-quality
Group Investigation (Cohen, 1994; Terwel, 2003). Students require adequate
preparation for studying the Group Investigation just as teachers require time to
learn how to use Group Investigation in their classrooms, so that at least the same
amount of time should be devoted to training students with Group Investigation
than for training teachers.
Even when sufficient time is given for students to acquire social skills, it may
still be insufficient to create the conditions conducive to the implementation of
cooperative learning in general and the Group Investigation method in partic-
ular. What still requires attention is changing some of the basic norms prevailing
in the schools. The entire conception of how time is to be utilised in educational
settings has to be questioned (Goodlad, 1984; Schmuck & Runkel, 1994; Schmuck
& Schmuck, 2001; Sharan, 2003). How many classes a day should students have?
How long should each class last? How many subjects should students study at
any given time? All these questions are typically answered by the prevailing sets
of uniform organisational norms that govern teachers’ and students’ behaviour.
The behaviour of teachers and students is very often affected by organisational
and political factors operating in schools. The broader school-wide and even
nation-wide norms governing the organisation of classrooms, the assignment of
students to classes, the schedule and frequency of examinations, the quantity of
the curricular material to be covered, and the long-standing attitudes and expec-
tations of the students developed through years of exposure to traditional forms
of schooling, are examples of some factors that exert powerful effects on the
behaviour of teachers and students in the classroom (Sarason, 1983, 1990, 1996;
Schmuck & Runkel, 1994). The widespread acceptance of these prevailing norms
is one reason why the introduction of a different form of instruction in a class-
room will evoke negative feelings from the students.

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

10 April 2006 13:06:18
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

Learning Geography Through Group Investigation in Singapore 275

The Group Investigation method requires a different set of norms and expecta-
tions to which the teachers and students in this study were completely
unaccustomed. Many of the students’ written evaluations of the Group Investi-
gation method reflected their years of exposure to the traditional norms of
behaviour in schools. Schools must convey to the students a new set of academic
norms that require them to seek information that the teachers do not provide. In
this study, the same students who were taught only two units of Geography with
the Group Investigation method also attended other subject classes taught with
the traditional whole-class, presentation-recitation method, so that the students
were still very much affected by traditional school and classroom norms. Those
norms could be changed only by a relatively extensive school-change project.

Correspondence
Any correspondence should be directed to Dr Geok-Chin Ivy Tan, National
Institute of Education, Humanities and Social Studies Education Academic
Group, Singapore (gcitan@nie.edu.sg).

References
Ahuja, A. (1994) The effects of cooperative learning instructional strategy on the academic
achievement, attitudes toward science class and process skills of middle school science
students. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Ohio State University.
Bakeman, R. and Gottman, J.M. (1986) Observing Interaction: An Introduction to Sequential
Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, E. (1994) Designing Groupwork: Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom (2nd edn).
New York: Teachers College.
Goodlad, J. (1984) A Place Called School. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Jackson, B. (1994) Cooperative learning: A case study of a university course in system
analysis. Educational and Training Technology International 31 (3), 166–79.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1985) The internal dynamics of cooperative learning
groups. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb and R. Schmuck
(eds) Learning to Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn (pp. 103–24). New York: Plenum.
Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (2002) Learning together and alone: Overview and
meta-analysis. Asia Pacific Journal of Education 22 (1), 95–105.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R. and Maruyama, G. (1983) Interdependence and interpersonal
attraction among heterogeneous and homogeneous individuals: A theoretical formula-
tion and a meta-analysis of the research. Review of Educational Research 53, 5–54.
Johnson, D., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R., Nelson, D. and Skon, L. (1981) Effects of coopera-
tive, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin 89, 47–62.
McManus, S.M. and Gettinger, M. (1996) Teacher and students evaluations of cooperative
learning and observed interactive behaviors. Journal of Educational Research 90 (1), 13–
22.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1984) Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New
Methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Miles, M.B. and Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook
(2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mueller, A. and Fleming, T. (2001) Cooperative learning: Listening to how children work
at school. Journal of Education Research 94 (5), 259–65.
Mulryan, C.M. (1994) Perceptions of intermediate students’ cooperative small-group
work in mathematics. Journal of Educational Research 87 (5), 280–91.
Nastasi, B.K. and Clements, D.H. (1991) Research on cooperative learning: Implications
for practice. School Psychology Review 20 (1), 110–31.
Qin, Z., Johnson, D.W. and Johnson, R.T. (1995) Cooperative versus competitive efforts
and problem solving. Review of Educational Research 65, 129–43.

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

10 April 2006 13:06:18
Color profile: Disabled
Composite Default screen IRGEE 180

276 International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education

Sarason, S. (1983) Schooling in America: Scapegoat and Salvation. New York: Free Press.
Sarason, S. (1990) The Predictable Failure of Educational Reform. San Francisco: Josey-Bass.
Sarason, S. (1996) Revisiting ‘The Culture of the School and the Problem of Change’. New York:
Teachers College.
Schmuck, R. and Runkel, P. (1994) The Handbook of Organization Development in Schools and
Colleges (4th edn). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
Schmuck, R.A. and Schmuck, P.A. (2001) Group Processes in the Classroom (8th edn). Boston:
McGraw Hill.
Shachar, H. and Sharan, S. (1994) Talking, relating, achieving: Effects of cooperative
learning and whole-class instruction. Cognition and Instruction 12, 313–53.
Sharan, S. (1980) Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on
achievement, attitudes and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research 50, 241–71.
Sharan, S. (2003) Large classes, small groups: A social systems approach. In R.M Gillies
and A.F. Ashman (eds) Cooperative Learning: The Social and Intellectual Outcomes of
Learning in Groups (pp. 210–23). New York: Routledge Falmer.
Sharan, S. and Shachar, H. (1988) Language and Learning in the Cooperative Classroom. New
York: Springer.
Sharan, S. and Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1978) Cooperation and Communication in Schools (in
Hebrew). Tel Aviv, Israel: Schocken.
Sharan, Y. and Sharan, S. (1992) Expanding Cooperative Learning Through Group Investiga-
tion. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Sharan, Y. and Sharan, S. (1999) Group investigation in the cooperative classroom. In S.
Sharan (ed.) Handbook of Cooperative Learning Methods (2nd edn) (pp. 97–114). Westport,
CT: Greenwood.
Slavin, R.E. (1980) Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research 50 (2), 315–42.
Slavin, R.E. (1983) Cooperative Learning. New York: Longman.
Slavin, R.E. (1991) Synthesis of research on cooperative learning. Educational Leadership 48,
71–82.
Slavin, R.E. (1995) Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice (2nd edn). Boston:
Allyn and Bacon.
Slesinski, C. (1998) The role of concepts, plans and enactment when cooperative learning is
implemented for purpose of school reform. Unpublished doctoral disseration, Univer-
sity of Albany, State University of New York.
Terwel, J. (2003) Cooperative learning in secondary education. In R.M. Gillies and A.F.
Ashman (eds) Cooperative Learning: The Social and Intellectual Outcomes of Learning in
Groups (pp. 54–68). New York: Routledge Falmer.
Whicker, K.M., Bol, L. and Nunnery, J.A. (1997) Cooperative learning in the secondary
mathematics classroom. Journal of Educational Research 91 (1), 42–8.
Wolf, D., Bixby, J., Glenn, J. and Gardner, H. (1991) To use their minds well: Investigating
new forms of student assessment. In G. Grant (ed.) Review of Research in Education 17,
31–74. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

C:\Documents and Settings\Anne\My Documents\Irgee\14-4\irgee14-4.vp

10 April 2006 13:06:18