The Canadian Journal of Higher Education La revue canadienne d'enseignement supérieur Volume XXXII, No. 2, 2002 pages 27^16 Testing the Effect of a Cohort Grouping Model as a Form of Instructional Grouping in Teacher Education* LILY DYSON & BETTY HANLEY University of Victoria ABSTRACT The study examined the effect of cohort grouping as a form of deliv- ering teacher education programs on student social adjustment and acad- emic performance. A sample of 94 students entering a Canadian Faculty of Education was divided into two groups: the cohort (n = 46) and the non-cohort group (« = 48). The former shared five courses and learned together from the same instructors for the academic year, and the latter took courses individually. The results showed that while there were no group differences on the measures of social support, self-efficacy, and university adjustment, the non-cohort group made greater gains than the cohort group in the academic performance as measured by the grade point average (GPA) over the academic year. RÉSUMÉ L'étude a examiné les effets sur l'adaptation sociale estudiantine et sur la performance académique du groupement des cohortes comme forme d'administration des programmes pour la formation des professeurs. Un échantillon de 94 étudiants débutant dans une faculté * This study was supported by a grant awarded by the Faculty Research and Travel of the University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. We sincerely thank pre-service teachers for their kind participation. 28 L. Dyson & B. Hanley d'éducation au Canada a été divisé en 2 groupes : celui des cohortes {n = 46) et celui des non-cohortes (n = 48). Les premiers ont partagé cinq cours et ont appris ensemble des mêmes intervenants pendant un an tandis que les autres ont suivi individuellement des cours. Bien que les mesures de soutien social, d'auto-efficacité et de l'adaptation universitaire ne démontrent pas les différences entre les groupes, la note moyenne du groupe non-cohorte a dépassé celle du groupe cohorte sur une période d'une année académique. Les résultats sont discutés en tenant compte des implications pour la recherche additionnelle. The search for more effective forms of delivering instruction in higher education is particularly pertinent in view of the current public demand for educational reform and accountability (Lewington & Orpwood, 1993). The instructional emphasis has moved toward a learner-centered and cooperative model of delivery of education (American Psychological Association, 1994; Hettich, 1993; Kubota, 1991). This emphasis has coincided with the trend toward building a community of learners in which learners are purposefully grouped to create a learning environment supporting collaborative approaches and cross-course connections (Angelo, 1997). A cohort group model is one instructional delivery format that could help meet these objectives. In higher education, a cohort group refers to the grouping of students who share a set of common courses or learning activities for an extended period of time (Barnett & Muse, 1993). The primary purpose of a cohort group is to create a supportive learning environment (Barnett & Muse, 1993). Cohort groups especially meet adult learners' learning style and needs for affiliation, mutual learning, and control over educational deci- sion-making (Barnett & Muse, 1993). Thus, the cohort model appears to be especially appropriate for professional schools. It is no wonder that the cohort group model has been increasingly utilized in professional schools in such disciplines as business, medicine, and education (Barnett & Muse, 1993). Indeed, the cohort model has emerged as a fashionable delivery structure for preparing educational leaders (Basom, Norris, & Barnett, 1995). The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXII, No. 2, 2002 Testing the Effect of a Cohort Grouping Model 3 7 Cohort groups would seem to be particularly appropriate for teacher education programs. The absence of a cohort experience in teacher education means that "prospective teachers have little opportunity to share their perceptions of teaching... and to observe one another in the classroom" (Weinstein, 1988, p. 33). Although the cohort group model has reportedly been successfully employed in faculties of education in the training of educational administrators (Barnett & Muse, 1993; Teitel, 1997), its application to other areas of education remains limited. The scant literature suggests that cohort groups generate a number of positive effects. A major benefit is the social support and connection making engendered in the model. Greater emotional support and social affiliation have been identified as resulting from such group experiences (Barnett & Muse, 1993; Howey & Zimpher, 1989; Kent State University, 1989; Teitel, 1997). The organizational structure of a cohort group also permits students to engage in decision-making and to take some owner- ship of the operation of the program (Barnett & Muse, 1993). A cohort group thus may cultivate self-efficacy, which refers to an individual's belief in his/her own capacity to perform successfully on a task (Bandura, 1982). Indeed, a study at the University of Massachusetts at Boston (UMB) found increased power among the students in educational leadership programs as a result of cohort grouping (Teitel, 1997). For example, the cohort students felt empowered to negotiate with faculty on the syllabus and to have their needs addressed and, hence, the class activities adjusted. Self-efficacy also rose in individual members. As one student stated: "We develop our own sense of authority and leadership and responsibility" (p. 76). Researchers have related effective interaction with peers to high aca- demic achievement in higher education (Pascarella, 1985). With the pos- sibly strong presence of social support and self-eflficacy, a cohort group would also benefit students' general adjustment to university life and academic learning. This possibility is indirectly supported by studies linking social support to personal adjustment, perceived academic suc- cess, and grade point average (GPA) in graduate students (Hodgson & Simoni, 1995). Further support is provided by a study that found higher degrees of self-efficacy to be associated with higher levels of academic The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXII, No. 2, 2002 30 L. Dyson & B. Hanley performance in undergraduate students (Wood, & Locke, 1987) and adjustment to university life in students with learning disabilities (Saracoglu, Minden, & Wilchesky, 1989). Indeed, benefits for the stu- dents in cohort experiences have included improved academic perfor- mance (Barnett & Muse, 1993). Thus, research leads to the hypothesis that cohort grouping could result in greater degrees of personal adjust- ment to student life, increased social support, self-efficacy, and higher academic achievement. Negative effects of cohort groups, however, have also been reported. One such effect is that the cohort group may be disrupted by a few indi- vidual members and that there may be the undesirable development of group versus world mentality (Etheridge, 1986). The UMB experience also found negative effects of cohort grouping in which individual alien- ation and formation of cliques developed (Teitel, 1997). Furthermore, distracting social interaction may negate the performance gains of cohe- sive groups (Reynold & Hebert, 1998). Thus, when negative effects result from cohort grouping, it would follow that members of the group would have less desirable development in the areas of personal adjust- ment, social support, and academic success. Although the potentially positive and negative effects of cohort grouping have been suggested, the effect of such an instructional group- ing model on the students' social adjustment and academic performance has not been adequately tested. The few studies that exist have relied on anecdotal reports (Yerkes, Basom, Norris, & Barnett, 1995). In, perhaps, the first empirical study of the effect of cohort grouping, Reynold and Hebert (1998) compared cohort and non-cohort groups in graduate pro- grams for business administration, public administration, and educa- tional administration. They confirmed that cohort groups exceeded the non-cohort groups in the affective learning domain but not significantly in the cognitive learning domain. This result, however, was based only on a single observation, and no data were provided for comparing per- formance prior to and after the grouping. The methodology, therefore, did not allow for valid testing of the effect of experience associated with cohort groups. A more stringent test of the cohort group model would span the time period in which students in both groups would have the The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXII, No. 2, 2002 Testing the Effect of a Cohort Grouping Model 3 7 time to experience the grouping arrangements. Such a test would involve a repeated measure of the performance or behavior at the beginning and the end of cohort experience. No such study, however, is presently avail- able in the research literature on cohort grouping. A further weakness of current research on cohort grouping is the fail- ure to distinguish different types of cohort grouping. At least three types of cohort grouping have been practiced: (1) closed or pure cohorts, where students take all of their course work together in a pre-arranged sequence, (2) open or mixed cohorts, in which students enroll in a core set of classes together and take additional course work to meet their own course requirements, and (3) fluid or course-by-course cohorts, in which students may join the cohort at different times (Yerkes et al., 1995). A survey of 37 institutions that prepare school leaders in the U.S. found that the most commonly used groupings were of the first two types: the closed and the open models (Yerkes et al., 1995). Although likely the most commonly used, the closed model might not allow leeway should students encounter interpersonal difficulty in their cohort. This indeed was a finding of a cohort graduate program in educational leadership (Teitel, 1997). In this study, students reported having the feeling of "being stuck" (p. 71) and being "boxed into defined roles within the group" (p. 72). An open model, in contrast, allows for individual time should the cohort grouping turn problematic for group members. An open model of cohort grouping would appear to be a more practical form for the delivery of higher edu- cation. This model, however, has not been explicitly tested. A review of literature suggests that, despite the popularity of cohort grouping in higher education, the model is yet to be more stringently tested. The literature review also indicates the need to examine the effect of the open cohort model due to the latter's potential as a more practical and flexible model. Further research is thus important, especially in view of the potential benefits and disadvantages of cohort grouping for the delivery of higher education and the need to specify a cohort model that is effective and practical for the delivery of higher education. The results of such research would assist decision-making about the instructional application of cohort grouping in higher education, especially in teacher education, where the model would seem to be appropriate. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXII, No. 2, 2002 32 L. Dyson & B. Hanley This study examined an open cohort group model in which students were grouped together for a set of core subjects. The study evaluated the effect of this model on new students in a teacher education program. Based on a two-time repeated measure, the study examined the effect of the model on social and academic adjustment, specifically in the areas of (1) social support, (2) self-efficacy, (3) general adaptation to college life, and (4) academic performance. It was hypothesized that the cohort group would produce a greater degree of social support and self-efficacy than the non-cohort group. Further, the academic performance and general adaptation to college life would also be higher in the cohort group than in the non-cohort group. METHOD Participants The participants were 94 students entering the elementary school program of a Faculty of Education in a Canadian university. They were divided into two groups: the cohort group consisting of 46, and the non- cohort group, of 48 students. Their ages ranged from 20 to 40. There were 24 males and 70 females in the total group, 16 males in the cohort and 8 males in the non-cohort group. All participants, cohort or non- cohort, were in the 1st year of the teacher education program. They were admitted into the program after at least two years of course work in other disciplines. During the first two years in the education program, the par- ticipants were required to complete basic courses in teacher education. The university, with a full-time student registration of 14,000 students, is located in a medium-size metropolitan city of about 360,000 people. The participants in the cohort group were enrolled in a set of five required courses as a group and shared the courses for one year (two semesters). In essence, the students took the five courses together and were taught by the same instructors as a cohort group. The courses were Art Education, Drama Education, Music Education, Physical Education, and the Psychology of Childhood. Five instructors taught the set of courses. The instructors for both groups, however, worked indepen- dently in delivering the courses, with no regular formal discussion or The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXII, No. 2, 2002 Testing the Effect of a Cohort Grouping Model 3 7 collaboration beyond the interaction normally engaged in as colleagues and three yearly meetings as a group to share course outlines, content, and general progress in their classes. The non-cohort group of students selected their own courses and may or may not have shared courses with each other for the one-year period. The cohort participants were recruited from students entering the 1 st year of a program leading to a Bachelor of Education (B.Ed.) degree and teaching certification in the Faculty of Education under study. After their acceptance in the Faculty and prior to the beginning of the term, eligible students (those who were planning to take the same five required courses) were sent a letter describing the nature of the study and were invited to take part in the study as cohort members. Those agreeing to take part were asked to return a signed consent form. The non-cohort (control) group members were recruited at the beginning of the term from the non-cohort sections of the teacher educa- tion program. The same procedure used for the recruitment of the cohort group was applied for the recruitment of the non-cohort group. The recruitment and, hence, the study was completed in two years, each year with a sample of new students and using the same procedures, to reach the final sample size. Procedure The participants were interviewed and administered assessment scales at two times during the year: the beginning of their first year (Time 1 ) and, again, at the end of their first year (Time 2) in the Faculty. Likewise, their GPAs were collected at the beginning of their entrance to the Faculty of Education and, again, at the completion of their first year in the Faculty. In between the two time periods no special treatments were provided to any group except that the students in the cohort group shared a set of five courses taught by five instructors in the manner of instructional delivery described earlier. Instruments The following assessment scales were administered to both groups of participants. The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXII, No. 2, 2002 34 L. Dyson & B. Hanley Perceived Social Support — Friends (PSS-Fr) (Procidano & Heller, 1983): The Perceived Social Support Scale (PSS) (Procidano & Heller, 1983) measures the extent to which an individual perceives that his/her needs for support, information, and feedback are fulfilled by friends (PSS-Fr) and by family (PSS-Fa). In a series of three validation studies, PSS-Fr and PSS-Fa were verified to be related but separate and valid constructs. In the present study, the PSS-Fr was employed. The 20- item scale comprises declarative statements to which an individual answers "Yes," "No," or "Don't know." The higher the score, the greater the perceived social support. An example of the items is: "My friends give me the moral support 1 need." Based on college undergraduate stu- dents, PSS-Fr has high internal consistency, with a Cronbach alpha of .88 (Procidano & Heller, 1983). The Self-Efficacy Scale (Sherer et al., 1982): This scale measures a person's beliefs and expectations for his/her ability to perform tasks and to deal with others successfully. These beliefs and expectations are referred to as self-efficacy by Bandura (1986). Subjects rate agreement with each item on 14-point Likert scales, ranging from "strongly dis- agree" to "strongly agree." The scale has two subscales: the General Self-Efficacy subscale and the Social Self-Efficacy subscale. Both scales have adequate reliability with university students (Cronbach alpha coef- ficients of 0.86 and 0.71, respectively). In the present study, the rating was revised to a 5-point Likert scale. An example of the scale items is: "When I make plans, I am certain to make them work." The SACQ (Student Adaptation to College Questionnaire) (Baker & Siryk, 1989): the SACQ is a 67-item, self-report questionnaire designed to assess student adjustment to college life. In each item, a stu- dent responds to a 9-point scale ranging from "applies very closely to me" to "doesn't apply to me at all." The SACQ is divided into 4 sub- scales: Academic Adjustment (SACQ-ACAD), Social Adjustment (SACQ-SOC), Personal-Emotional Adjustment (SACQ-PER), and the Goal Commitment/Instructional Attachment (SACQ-ATT). The scale results in the full-scale score and the subscale scores. An example of the items is: "I have been keeping up to date on my academic work." The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXII, No. 2, 2002 Testing the Effect of a Cohort Grouping Model 3 7 Internal coefficients for the full-scale score based on a total of seven studies ranged from 0.85 to 0.91 (Baker & Bohdan, 1989). To measure academic performance, the participants' GPAs were obtained from their record with their informed consent. The GPA ranged from 1 to 9, the latter having a grade value of "A+." Additionally, an open-ended interview was carried out to assess other aspects of students' experience in the program. Results of portions of the interview data are reported elsewhere (Mather & Hanley, 1999). For the present analysis, one interview question was included in the post-hoc analysis to provide additional information about the social context of the classroom. The participants were asked: "How would you describe your relationship with your peers in the classes?" The answers were recorded verbatim. RESULTS The quantitative data were analyzed using the SPSS 8.0 version (SPSS Inc., 1997). Because the study took place over a two-year period, the analysis first examined if data from different years (Year 1 and Year 2) differed in any of the variables studied. For this purpose, a series of cor- related t-tests was conducted to test the differences between the first year and the secnd year based on the combination of both groups (cohort and non-cohort) for each year. No differences were found between the Year 1 and Year 2 data on any of the variables: the Self-Efficacy Scale, PSSS-Fr, and the SACQ full-scale scale and subscales. Additionally, there were no differences in the GPA between Year 1 and Year 2 groups. The merging of the two years of data for analysis to increase the statistical power was therefore justified. Personal Social Support—Friends and Self-Efficacy Descriptive statistics for personal social support — friends and self- efficacy for the cohort and non-cohort groups are presented in Table 1. ANOVA with repeated measure found no interaction effect nor group effect. There was, however, a time effect in which both groups reported having more social support at Time 1 (the beginning of the academic term) than at Time 2 (the end of the academic term) (F( 1, 92) = 9.84,/? > .01). The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXII, No. 2, 2002 36 L. Dyson & B. Hanley Table 1 Means (M) and Standard Deviation (SD) for Personal Social Support and Self-Efficacy, by Group by Time Period Group Cohort Non-cohort (n = 46) (n = 48) Time la Time Time 1 Time 2 Variable M SD M SD M SD M SD Personal Social Support 16.91 4.8 17.65 4.2 16.50 2.6 17.4 2.3 Self-Efficacy 90.7 10.7 94.6 9.5 88.5 9.0 90.4 8.3 a denotes the beginning of the academic term, k denotes the end of the academic term. With self-efficacy, ANOVA with repeated measure was applied. No interaction or group effect was found. There was, however, a time effect (F (1, 92) = 13.23, p > .0001); both groups reported stronger degrees of self-efficacy over time. Academic Performance Table 2 presents the GPA by group at Time 1 and Time 2. ANOVA with repeated measure repeated with time was subsequently performed with the GPA. The results showed a significant interaction effect of group by time (F ( 1, 92) = 19.50,p > .001). There was also a time effect (F (1, 92) = 44.49, p > .0001). While there was an increase in GPA in both groups from Time 1 to Time 2, the non-cohort group's gain signifi- cantly exceeded the cohort group's at Time 2. Adaptation to College Life Table 3 presents descriptive statistics for the cohort and the non- cohort groups on the full-scale and subscales of the SACQ. ANOVA with repeated measure with the SACQ total score found no interaction, group, The Canadian Journal of Higher Education Volume XXXII, No. 2, 2002