The Effect of Grouping by Students' Agreeableness in Cooperative Learning

협동학습에서 학생의 유화성에 따른 집단 구성의 효과

  • Published : 2002.12.30


In this study. the effects of grouping by students' agreeableness in cooperative learning strategy applied to middle school science classes on their achievement. confidence, satisfaction, attitude toward science class, and cohesion of group members were investigated. One hundred and fifty-eight students were assigned to control group, homogeneous group and heterogeneous group, and taught about separation of mixture for 7 class hours. The results revealed that there was no significant difference in the achievement test scores. However, significant interaction between the instruction and the level of agreeableness were found in the satisfaction and the cohesion of group members. Students of higher agreeableness level in the homogeneous group were more satisfied with science class and cohesive. Students' attitude toward science class in the homogeneous group was also significantly higher than those in the other groups.


cooperative learning;agreeableness;grouping method


  1. 노태희, 한재영, 서인호, 전경문, 차정호(2000). 학생의 내. 외향성에 따른 협동학습의 효과. 한국과학교육학회지 20(1), 43-51
  2. 한재영, 노태희(2002). 과학 수업에서의 소집단 활동에 대한 학생들의 인식. 한국과학교육학회지, 22(3), 499-507
  3. Fraser, B. J.(1981). Test of science-related attitudes: Handbook. Hawthorn: The Australian Council for Educational Research
  4. Keller, J. M.(1993). IMMS: instructional material motivation survey. Florida State University
  5. Kichuk, S. L. & Wiesner, W. H.(1997). The big five personality factors and team performance: implications for selecting successful product design teams. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, 14, 195-221
  6. Graziano, W. G., Hair, E. C., & Finch, J. F.(1997). Competitiveness mediates the link between personality and group performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1394-1480
  7. Slavin, R. E.(1990). Research on cooperative learning: Consensus and controversy. Educational Leadership, 47(4), 52-54
  8. Good, T. L., Mulryan, C., & McCaslin, M.(1992). Grouping for instruction in mathematics: a call for programmatic research on small-group process, In D. Grouws (Ed.) Handbook of research on mathematics teaching and learning. Macmillan: New York, 165-196
  9. Webb, N. M.(1984). Sex differences in interaction and achievement in cooperative small groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(1). 33-44
  10. 노태희, 박수연, 임희준, 차정호(1998). 협동학습 전략에서 소집단 구성 방법의 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 18(1), 61-70
  11. Shaw, M. E.(1981). Group dynamics: the psychology of small group behavior McGraw-Hill: NY, 191-261
  12. 노태희, 박수연, 임희준(1998). 중학교 물상 수업에서 학생 중심 활동을 강조한 협동학습과 개별학습 전략의 효과. 화학교육, 25(2), 56-64
  13. Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., Neubert, M. J., & Mount, G. L.(1998). Relating member ability and personality to work-team process and team effectiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(3), 377-391
  14. 노태희, 서인호, 한재영, 전경문, 차정호(2000). 협동학습에서 학생의 의사소통 불안에 따른 소집단 구성의 효과. 한국과학교육학회지, 20(1). 174-182
  15. De Raad, B. & Schouwenburg, H. C.(1996). Personality in learning and education: a review. European Journal of Personality, 10(5), 301-336<301::AID-PER272>3.0.CO;2-7
  16. Goldberg, L. R.(1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models, In I. Mervielde, I. J. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.) Personality Psychology in Europe (Volume 7). Tilburg University Press: Tilburg, The Netherlands, 7-28. Available:
  17. Chang, H. & Lederman, N. G. (1994). The effect of levels of cooperation within physical science laboratory groups on physical science achievement. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(2), 167-181
  18. Bowers, C. A., Pharmer, J. A., & Salas, E.(2000). When member homogeneity is needed in work team: a meta-analysis. Small Group Research. 31(3), 305-327
  19. Millar, D. P.(1986). Introduction to small group discussion. Speech Communication Association: Annandale, Virginia
  20. Neuman, G. A., Wagner, S. H., & Christiansen, N. D.(1999). The relationship between work-team personality composition and the job performance of teams. Group & Organization Management, 24(1), 28-45