1. EFFECT OF ONLINE COOPERATIVE LEARNING ON STUDENTS

Abstract This study investigated how cooperative learning affected students' academic performance in an online higher education environment. Its specific goal was to find out whether, in comparison to conventional online learning techniques, including cooperative learning activities could improve academic achievement. An experimental control group with a pre-test and post-test design was used. All students enrolled in the Virtual University of Pakistan's Fall semester undergraduate course "Test Development and Evaluation" were included in the population. A sample of seventy-three students was chosen and split into two groups: a control group consisting of 38 participants and an experimental group consisting of 35 individuals. In order to incorporate cooperative learning into the online learning environment, email-based activities were carried out. The purpose of these activities was to promote cooperation and knowledge exchange among the students in the experimental group. Contrarily, the control group followed the typical online learning protocol, finishing the pre- and post-tests but forgoing the cooperative learning exercises. The achievement exam functioned as the pre-test and post-test tool, enabling researchers to evaluate modifications in students' comprehension and knowledge. To compare the gain scores (the difference between pre- and post-test scores) between the experimental and control groups, parametric statistical analysis was used, most especially t-tests. A specified significance criterion of p < 0.05 was established. The outcomes were striking. The results of statistical analysis showed that there was a highly significant difference in the gain scores between the two groups, with a p-value of 0.002. When compared to the conventional online learning strategy used in the control group, this indicates that the cooperative learning activities conducted in the experimental group had a favourable and statistically significant impact on student academic achievement. To sum up, this study offers compelling evidence that using cooperative learning techniques in online learning settings can greatly improve students' academic performance. These results support the use of cooperative learning strategies by teachers in online learning environments in order to provide their students with a more engaging and productive learning environment. References Adeyemi, A. & Babatunde, O. (2008). Effects of cooperative learning and problem-solving strategies on junior secondary school students’ achievement in social studies. Electronic Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, 6 (3), 691-708, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ825273 Alghani, Y. M. A & Alhaija, Y. F. A. (2021) The Effect of the Cooperative Learning Method on Students’ Academic Achievement in Mathematics. Multicultural Education , 7 (3), 331-339, doi:10.5281/zenodo.4647901 Amita Rena Hall, MA. Ed. (2006). Families, Children and Communities in a Multicultural and Diverse Society. Research Paper on Curricular Models. Nova Southeastern University. Asif, D. M., & Sandhu, M. S. (2023). Social Media Marketing Revolution in Pakistan: A Study of its Adoption and Impact on Business Performance. Journal of Business Insight and Innovation , 2 (2), 67–77. Retrieved from https://insightfuljournals.com/index.php/JBII/article/view/23 Atashian, S. & Zamini, S. (2013). The Effects of cooperative language learning on Iranian EFL learners’ strategy use. Global Journal of Foreign Language Teaching , 1 , 09-14, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.01.834 Aziz, Z. (2010). A comparison of CL and conventional teaching on student achievement in secondary Mathematics. Journal of Social and Behavioral Sciences , 9 , 53-62, doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.12.115 Bashir, M., Ajmal, M., Rubab, I., & Bhatti, A. (2020). Increasing teachers’ use of positive reinforcement: Effects of performance feedback to improve a learners’ behavior. Journal of Critical Reviews , 7 (13), 2091-2104. Bliss, C., & Lawrence, B. (2009). Is the whole greater than the sum of its parts? A comparison of small group and whole class discussion board activity in online courses. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks , 13, 25-39. Bouroumi, A. & Fajr, R. (2014). Collaborative and cooperative e-learning in higher education in Morocco: A case study. iJET . 9 (1). doi: 10.3991/ijet.v9i1.3065 Brady, M. & Tsay, M., (2010). A case study of cooperative learning and communication pedagogy: Does working in teams make a difference? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10 (2), 78 –89. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ890724.pdf Brown, H., & Ciuffetelli, D.C. (2009). Foundational methods: Understanding teaching and learning. Toronto: Pearson Education. Chwo, S-M. G., Marek, M. W., & Wu, W. C. V. (2016). Curriculum integration of MALL in L1/L2 pedagogy: Perspectives on research. Educational Technology & Society , 19 (2), 340– 354. Clark, R. E., & Sugrue, B. M. (1991). Research on instructional media. In G. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional technology: Past, present and future. Englewood, Colorado, U.S.A.: Libraries Unlimited, pp. 327-343. Cox, B. & Cox, B. (2008). Developing interpersonal and group dynamics through asynchronous threaded discussions: The use of discussion board in collaborative learning. Education , 4 , 553-565. Gaith, G. (2003). Effects of learning together model of cooperative learning on English as a foreign language: Reading achievements, academic self-esteem and feeling of school alienation. Bilingual Research Journal, 27 (3), 459-461. doi: 10.1080/15235882.2003.10162603 Jbeili, I.M.I. (2003). The Effects of Metacognitive Scaffolding and Cooperative Learning on Mathematics Performance and Mathematical Reasoning Among Fifth-Grade Students In Jordan. PhD Dissertation. University Sains Malaysia. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into practice , 38 (2), 67-73. doi: 10.1080/00405849909543834 Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina , MN: Interaction Books. Johnson, D.W., Johnson, R.T., & Stanne, M.B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis, http://www.co-operation.org/pages/cl-methods.html. Kaymak, S., Zh.Kassymbek, Kalamkas A., Saydenov (2021). Effect of Cooperative Learning on Students Academic Achievement. Management studies, 9 (6), 495-503, doi: 10.17265/2328-2185/2021.06.009 Khan, S. A. (2008). An experimental study to evaluate the effectiveness of cooperative learning versus traditional learning method . (Doctoral dissertation), International Islamic University Islamabad, Pakistan. Kupczynski, L., Marie Anne Mundy, M.A., Goswami, J. & Meling,V. (2012). Cooperative learning in distance learning: A mix methods study. International Journal of Instruction. 5 (2), 81-90. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED533785.pdf McNeil, S. G., Robin, B. R., Miller, R. M. (2000). Facilitating interaction, communication and collaboration in online courses. Computers & Geosciences, 26 (6), 699-708. doi: 10.1016/S0098-3004(99)00106-5 Negangard & Sue. (1992). The Effect of Cooperative Learning Versus Lecture-Discussion on Student attitudes and Achievement in a Mathematics MethodsCourse for Preservice Elementary School Teachers. DAIA 53/02, pg.470. Dissertation, Ohio University , USA. Slaughter, T. (2009). Creating a successful academic climate for urban students. Techniques, 8 (1), 16-19, Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ829500.pdf Teed, R., McDaris, J., & Roseth, C. (2021). Assessment of Cooperative Learning. Starting Point. Retrieved from https://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/cooperative/assess.html Tran, V.D. (2014). The Effect of Cooperative Learning on the Academic Achievement and Knowledge Retention. International Journal of Higher Education, 3 (2), 131-140, doi:10.5430/ijhe.v3n2p131 Webb, J. (2002). Benefits of Cooperative Learning in Multimedia Environment. (Dissertation), Southern Illinois University Woolfolk, A. (2004). Education psychology. (9th ed.). New Delhi: Dorling Kinders.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.