Upload
lynn3940
View
2.159
Download
6
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Citation preview
The Effectiveness of Applying Cooperative Learning to the EFL
Classroom in a Technological University
Presenter: Shing-Yu TsaiAdvisor: Dr. Chin-Ling Lee
Date: May 25, 2009
Contents
2
11
22
33
Introduction
Literature Review
Methodology
44 Results and Discussions
55 Conclusions and Suggestions
Definition of Terms
Research Questions
Purposes of the Study
Statements of the Problems
Background of the Study
3
Introduction
Background of the Study
The globalization phenomenon has undoubtedly
taken place, and English has arisen as the most
common language for worldwide communication.
4
( Falits & Hudelson, 1998; McCrum, MacNeil, & Cran, 2002 )
Background of the Study
Among the four English language skills, English
speaking proficiency has recently drawn a great deal
of attention in Taiwan, since it plays an important
role in tourism, business, and cultural exchange in
the global village.
( Chang, 2008; Hsu, 2004; Wang, 2008 ) 5
Background of the Study
6
Grammar-Translation Method (GTM)
Inadequate Learning Environments
Reasons
( Chen, 2004; Huang, 1999 )
Statements of the Study
7
Students have little team work.1
Students are shy, passive and have no confidence.2
Their scores are graded by individual.3
Students can’t put what they have learned into practice.
4
GTM
( Lai, 2002; Tsai, 1998; Yu, 1995; Wei & Chen, 1993 )
Statements of the Study
Previous studies on cooperative learning were mostly focused on various courses in secondary or elementary education; its application to English instruction in higher vocational education has barely been considered.
( Lee, 2004 )
8
Purposes of the Study
9
To investigate the effectiveness of cooperative learning and traditional lecture-based learning on the listening and oral achievements of college students majoring in business
Purposes of the Study
10
To examine the differences in conceptual learning style preferences and learning motivation among students in cooperative learning and traditional lecture-based learningTo explore the perspectives toward different teaching methods on cooperative learning and traditional lecture-based learning of EFL learners in the two different classes collected through in-depth interviews
Research Questions
11
11Are there any differences between the effects of the cooperative learning and those of the traditionallecture-based learning on students’ listening achievement?
2Are there any differences between the effects of the cooperative learning and those of the traditional lecture-based learning on students’ oral achievement?
Research Questions
12
33
Are there any differences between the effects of the cooperative learning and those of the traditional lecture-based learning on students’ conceptual learning style preferences?
44
Are there any differences between the effects of the cooperative learning and those of the traditional lecture-based learning on students’ learning motivation?
Research Questions
13
55What main elements comprise the viewpoints of EFL learners in the cooperative learning class and the traditional lecture-based learning class?
66What variables affect the viewpoints of EFL learners in the cooperative learning class and the traditional lecture-based learning class?
What variables affect the viewpoints of EFL learners in the cooperative learning class and the traditional lecture-based learning class?
Definition of Terms
High and Low English Achievers
In the field of testing and assessment, the preferred method to compare the higher and the lower groups is to select samples from the top and the bottom 25% to 33%; sampling the top and bottom 27% is recommended.
( Chen & Lin, 2009; Wu, 2007 )
14
Communicative Competence
Literature Review
15
Cooperative LearningCooperative Learning
Perceptual Language Learning Style PreferencesPerceptual Language Learning Style PreferencesLanguage Learning MotivationLanguage Learning Motivation
Communicative Competence
Communicative competence was the expression
of sociolinguistic that regarded language as social behavior.
( Wellman, 2002 )
16
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative group made students of different performance levels engage in instructional
methods to pursue a common goal.
( Ha¨nze & Berger, 2007; Slavin, 1987 )
17
Cooperative Learning
18
It reduced learning anxiety.1
It increased the amount of students participating in learning activities.2
It built a supportive learning environment. 3
( Liang, 2000 )
Cooperative Learning
19
social skills
academic achievem
ent
Effectiveness
(Fenton, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Putnam, 1997; Ye, 1993 )
Cooperative Learning Five major factors
20
Social and Small Group Skills
4
Group Processing5
1 Face to Face Interaction
2
Positive Interdependence11
Individual Accountability3
( Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2000 )
Cooperative Learning
Positive Interdependence Positive interdependence created the sense that” we sank or swam together”. Group members perceived “all” members as essential for group success and worked together towards a common goal of each other’s learning.
( Johnson et al, 2000 )
21
Cooperative Learning
22
Positive goal interdependence
Resource interdependence
Role interdependence
( Johnson et al., 2000 )
Cooperative LearningClick to add Title1 exchanging needed resources
Click to add Title2 encouraging their group membersClick to add Title1 explaining how to solve
problemsClick to add Title2 checking for understanding
Click to add Title1 discussing concepts being learned
Click to add Title2 connecting present with past learning
Face to Face
Interaction
( Johnson & Johnson, 2000 ) 23
Cooperative Learning
Individual Accountability Individual accountability existed when each of the group members contributed his or her efforts to accomplish the goal. This element stressed that group accomplishment depended on the coordination of all
members’ efforts.
24( Johnson & Johnson, 2000 )
Cooperative Learning
25
interact in leadership
decision-making
trust-building
conflict-managements
Social and Small Group Skills
( Karrie & Jennifer, 2008 )
Cooperative Learning
Group Processing Group processing clarified and
improved member effectiveness in
contributing to cooperative efforts to attain the
group’s goal.
26
( Johnson & Johnson, 2000 )
Perceptual Language Learning Style Preferences
Foreign language learners claimed that learners’ learning style would determine whether they success in the academic performance.
( Castro & Peck, 2005 )
27
Language Learning Motivation
The correlation between motivation and
English achievements was very high.
( Chou, 1989; Huang, 1990; Liang, 2002 )
28
Instruments
Participants
Research Structure
Methodology
29
Experimental Design
Data Collection
Procedure of the Study
Data Analysis
Procedure of the Study
30
Pilot Study
Formal Study
Control Group
1. Pre- test on listening and oral
achievements2. Two questionnaires on
students’ learning-style
preferences and learning motivation at
the pre-test
Pre-test
Pre-test 1. Pre- test on listening and
oral achievements 2. Two questionnaires on
students’ learning-style
preferences and learning motivation at
the pre-test
Experimental Group
Procedure of the Study
31
Cooperative learningfor one semester
Traditional lecture-basedlearning for one semester
Semi-structure interview
Post-test
1. Post-test on listening and oral
achievements 2. Two questionnaires on
students’ learning-style
preferences and learning motivation at
the post-test
Post-test 1. Post-test on listening and
oral achievements 2. Two questionnaires on
students’ learning-style
preferences and learning motivation at
the post-test
Semi-structure interview
Data Collection & AnalyzingData Collection & Analyzing
Participants
32
39 participants
English conversation class
Department of business
Studying English for more than six years
Participants Participants
6 males; 33 females
Two-year System College
33
Instruments
A questionnaire2
An English speaking evaluation form
3
An academic achievement test
1
An interview protocol4
Academic achievement test
ListeningListening SpeakingSpeaking
34 ( LTTC at elementary level )
Picture description
Statement response
Questions
( 20 mins )
Read passage
Repeat the words
Answer questions
( 5 mins )
Questionnaire
Permission Consent form
Time Consent form: 5 mins
Questionnaire: 15 mins
35
1 2 3 4 5
strongly disagree strongly agree
Questionnaire
Perceptual Learning-Style
Preferences
Learning Motivation
36
Joy Reid ( 1995 ) Clement et al. ( 1994 )
28 items 20 items
Crobach’s alpha: .87 Crobach’s alpha: .95
Questionnaire
37
Part 3Part 1
Individual Background Survey
Perceptual Learning-style Preferences
Learning Motivation
Part 2
Questionnaire
IBS
PLPQ
QLM
subscales
38
visual
auditory
tactile
kinesthetic
group
integrative
instrumental
motivational achieving
learning goal
age
gender
experiences
proficiency
questionnaire.doc
Content:20%
Grammar:20%
Vocabulary:20%
Fluency:20%
Appropriateness: 20%
English speaking evaluation form
39
(Chang, 2003)
English speaking evaluation form
Two raters:
40
Class instructor
Experienced English institute for many years
Teaching English for more than 15 yearsExpertise on cooperative learning
Interview Protocol Interview concern:
41
social and small group skills
4
group processing5
1 face to face interaction
2
positive interdependence11
individual accountability3
( Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2000 )
InterviewExperimental group
Control group
Interviewee
Time
Tool
Language
42
2 high achievers 2 high achievers
2 intermediate achievers
2 intermediate achievers
2 low achievers 2 low achievers
15-20 mins
Tape- recorded
15-20 mins
Tape- recorded
Chinese Chinese
Experimental Design
43
Experimental Group:
Control Group:
ED
23 participants 16 participantsTraditional lecture-based learning
Cooperative learning
One semester One semesterTwo periods a
weekTwo periods a
weekSame material Same materialSame instructor Same instructor
Heterogeneous grouping
No heterogeneous grouping
Grouping
GroupTwo intermediate achievers
One high achiever
One low achiever
44
Students listened to and repeated dialogue. A
Students worked independently and competed with one another. B
Control Group
45
The teacher was the instructor while students were listeners.3C
Traditional lecture-based learning:
Experimental GroupCooperative learning:
Jigsaw II
STAD (Student-
Team-Achieveme
nt- Divisions)
CL CL
46
STAD
47
STADSTAD
BB
EE
CC
DD
AAteacher’s lecture
team study
group recognition
class presentation
individual quizzes
Jigsaw II
48
teacher’s lecture cooperati
ve groups
preparation pairs
practice pairs
teamperformance
Data Collection
A B C
The scores of academic achievements: listening &oral
The results of questionnaire:learning style preferences & learning motivation
Individualinterview: control & experimental group
Data Analysis
50
ANCOVA
Independent Samples Test
Constant Comparative
Analysis
Post-test of the learning achievements, responses of learning style preferences andlearning motivation (Q1, Q2,Q3, Q4)
The significant differences between two classes (Q1, Q2,Q3, Q4)
Interview (Q5, Q6)
11 comparing incidents to each category
Constant comparative data analysis
51
22 integrating categories and their properties
33 delimiting the theory
44 writing the theory
( Glaser & Strauss, 1967 )
Results of Achievements
Q1: Are there any differences between the effects of the cooperative learning
and those of the traditional lecture-based learning on students’ listening achievement?
52
Table 1Summary of Analysis of One-Way ANCOVA on the Comparison of the Posttest Scores on Listening of the Two Groups
Table 1Summary of Analysis of One-Way ANCOVA on the Comparison of the Posttest Scores on Listening of the Two Groups
Note. *p<.05Note. *p<.05
Source SS df MS F Sig.
Listening 2556.89 1 2556.89 31.53 .00
Group 3919.76 1 3919.76 48.33 .00*
Error 2919.73 36 81.10
Corrected
Total8857.69 38
Results of Achievements
53
Table 2Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest Scores and the Posttest Scores on Listening of the Two Groups
Table 2Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest Scores and the Posttest Scores on Listening of the Two Groups
When separately examining the progress each group had made on the English listening achievement, the cooperative learning group had positively showed its better effectiveness in the EFL classroom.
Pre Post MD t
p Adjusted
Means
Experimen
tal75.13 86.63 11.5 -5.12
.00* 87.53
Control 78.09 67.70 10.39 3.75 .00* 67.06
Note. *p<.05
Results of Achievements
Q2: Are there any differences between the effects of the cooperative learning
and those of the traditional lecture-based learning on students’ oral achievement?
54
Table 3 Summary of Analysis of One-Way ANCOVA on the Comparison of the Posttest Scores on Oral Achievement of the Two Groups
Table 3 Summary of Analysis of One-Way ANCOVA on the Comparison of the Posttest Scores on Oral Achievement of the Two Groups
Source SS df MS F Sig.
Oral 1572.46 1 1572.46 6.85 .01
Group 1449.19 1 1449.19 6.32 .02*
Error 8258.77 36 229.41
Corrected
Total10868.31 38
Note. *p<.05Note. *p<.05
Results of Achievements
55
Table 4Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest Scores and the Posttest Scores on Oral Achievement of the Two Groups
Table 4Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest Scores and the Posttest Scores on Oral Achievement of the Two Groups
When separately examining the progress each group had made on the English oral achievement, the cooperative learning group had positively showed its better effectiveness in the EFL classroom
When separately examining the progress each group had made on the English oral achievement, the cooperative learning group had positively showed its better effectiveness in the EFL classroom
Pre Post MD t
p Adjusted
Means
Experimen
tal62.25 78.88 16.63 -6.31
.00* 80.09
Control 67.74 68.39 0.65 -0.14 .89 67.54Note. *p<.05Note. *p<.05
Results of Questionnaires
Q3: Are there any differences between the effects of the cooperative learning
and those of the traditional lecture-based learning on students’ conceptual learning style preferences?
56
Table 5Summary of Analysis of One-Way ANCOVA on the Comparison of the Posttest Scores onLearning Style Preferences of the Two Groups
Table 5Summary of Analysis of One-Way ANCOVA on the Comparison of the Posttest Scores onLearning Style Preferences of the Two Groups
Source SS df MS F Sig.
PLPQ .073 1 .07 .34 .57
Group 4.56 1 4.56 21.10 .00*
Error 7.78 36 .22
Corrected
Total12.47 38Note. *p<.05Note. *p<.05
Results of Questionnaires
57
Table 6Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest Scores and the Posttest Scores on Learning Style Preferences of the Two Groups
Table 6Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest Scores and the Posttest Scores on Learning Style Preferences of the Two Groups
The experimental group got higher significant difference in their
learning style preferences toward learning English after the intervention of cooperative learning.
The experimental group got higher significant difference in their
learning style preferences toward learning English after the intervention of cooperative learning.
Pre Post MD t
p Adjusted
Means
Experimen
tal3.76 3.31 0.45 3.42
.00* 4.00
Control 3.80 3.85 0.04 -.35 .73 3.32Note. *p<.05Note. *p<.05
Results of Questionnaires
Q4: Are there any differences between the effects of the cooperative learning
and those of the traditional lecture-based learning on students’ learning
motivation?
58
Table 7Summary of Analysis of One-Way ANCOVA on the Comparison of the Posttest Scores on Learning Motivation of the Two Groups
Table 7Summary of Analysis of One-Way ANCOVA on the Comparison of the Posttest Scores on Learning Motivation of the Two Groups
Source SS df MS F Sig.
QLM .19 1 .19 .71 .41
Group 2.04 1 2.04 7.54 .01*
Error 9.71 36 .27
Corrected Total 12.28 38
Note. *p<.05Note. *p<.05
Results of Questionnaires
59
Table 8Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest Scores and the Posttest Scores on Learning Motivation of the Two Groups
Table 8Descriptive Statistics of the Pretest Scores and the Posttest Scores on Learning Motivation of the Two Groups
Students in cooperative learning had higher motivation
to learn English.
Students in cooperative learning had higher motivation
to learn English.
Pre Post MD t
p Adjusted
Means
Experimen
tal3.97 3.51 0.46 2.53
.02* 3.10
Control 3.77 4.01 0.25 -1.59 .13 3.52Note. *p<.05Note. *p<.05
Data Analyses of Interviews
Table 9 Profile of the participants
60
CodeGende
r
Year of English
Learning
English Proficiency
Group
IFemal
e 7 Low Experimental
IIFemal
e6 Low Experimental
IIIFemal
e6 Intermediate Experimental
IV Male 8 High Experimental
VFemal
e7 High Experimental
VIFemal
e7 Intermediate Experimental
VIIFemal
e7 Intermediate Control
VIII Male 6 High Control
IXFemal
e6 High Control
XFemal
e8 Low Control
XIFemal
e7 Intermediate Control
XIIFemal
e6 Low Control
Interview Protocol
61
How would you describe your learning experiences toward the instructional strategies and learningactivities of the class you attended?
How would you describe your learning experiences toward the instructional strategies and learningactivities of the class you attended?
Tell me about your view or attitude toward the teacher and students of English learning?
Tell me about your view or attitude toward the teacher and students of English learning?
Tell me about the satisfying situations you found in English learning class?
Tell me about the satisfying situations you found in English learning class?
Tell me about the frustrating situations you found in English learning class?
Part I: The elements of students’ viewpoints in the EFL classroom
Part I: The elements of students’ viewpoints in the EFL classroom
Interview Protocol
62
Tell me how to solve the problems in English learning?
Tell me how to solve the problems in English learning?
Tell me what kind of group dividing can enhance your English learning?
Tell me what kind of group dividing can enhance your English learning?
Part I: The elements of students’ viewpoints in the EFL classroom
Part I: The elements of students’ viewpoints in the EFL classroom
Would you describe an ideal English learning class?Would you describe an ideal English learning class?
Data Analyses of Interviews
63
Table 10How would you describe your learning experiences toward the instructional strategies and learning activities of the class you attended?
Data Analyses of Interviews
64
Table 12How would you describe your learning experiences toward the instructional strategies and learning activities of the class you attended?
Interview Protocol
65
What influence did learning motivation and style preferences have on your learning in English learning class?
What influence did learning motivation and style preferences have on your learning in English learning class?
What would you consider to be used for supportive facilities in English learningclassroom?
What would you consider to be used for supportive facilities in English learningclassroom?
Would you like the materials or supplementary in English learning classroom?
Would you like the materials or supplementary in English learning classroom?
Would you describe your English learning motivation and how to learn English effectively?
Part II: The Variablesaffect students’ learning in the EFL classroom
Part II: The Variablesaffect students’ learning in the EFL classroom
Data Analyses of Interviews
66
Table 13What would you consider to be used for supportive facilities in English learning classroom?
Data Analyses of Interviews
67
Table 14What would you consider to be used for supportive facilities in English learning classroom?
Research
Questions
Interview
QuestionsResponses Participants
B. variables
affect the
learning in
the EFL
classroom
2. be used for
supportive
facilities in
English
learning
classroom
01 material &
supplementar
y
02 CALL
03 learning
activities
I,III,XI,XII,VI,VII
,
VIII,IX
II,V
IV
Development of the Conceptual Framework
Q5:What main elements consist of the viewpoints of EFL learners in the cooperative
learning class and traditional lecture-based method class?
68
Development of the Model
Q6:What variables affect the viewpoints of EFL learners in the cooperative learning class and traditional lecture-based learning class?
69
Suggestions for Future Study 4
Conclusions and Discussions1
Pedagogical Implications2
Limitations of the Study 3
Conclusions
70
Conclusions and Discussions
The participants in the experimental class with cooperative learning achieved significant better learning listening and oral than those in the control class with the traditional lecture-based learning.
The highly interactive settings would enable learners to gain better communicative competence in language learning.
The highly interactive settings would enable learners to gain better communicative competence in language learning.
71
( Kagan,1995 )
Conclusions and Discussions
Student’s potentials for English learning could be well inspired through the frequent exchange of target language with the classmates.
The increase of student talk through comprehensible input, interactions, and output contributed to the students’ oral communicative competence.
The increase of student talk through comprehensible input, interactions, and output contributed to the students’ oral communicative competence.
72
( Chai, 1998; Liang, 2002; Wei, 1997 )
( Liang, 2002 )
Conclusions and Discussions
73
In a less threatening learning context as that of cooperative learning, the students in the experimental group were able to demonstrate higher classroom participation, which was related to their statistical gain in the language achievements.
In a less threatening learning context as that of cooperative learning, the students in the experimental group were able to demonstrate higher classroom participation, which was related to their statistical gain in the language achievements.
(Lin, 1993; Zhou, 2002)
Conclusions and Discussions
74
The students in the cooperative learning instruction could gain their learning style preferences in the EFL class in the technological institutes.
Learning style would determine the success of the learning achievement.
(Castro & Peck, 2005)
(Castro & Peck, 2005)
Conclusions and Discussions
75
Participants’ viewpoints on the success of EFL class are based on students’ needs of relevant learning supplementary materials, learning activities that the teacher designed for the students.
Factors affect learner’s viewpoints of the EFL class are included as follows, (a) learning style preferences, the teacher and students’ help from the classroom learning habit in the past and (b) motivation, learning belief about English learning.
Conclusions and Discussions
The students in the experimental class showed higher motivation than those in the control class.
The students in the experimental class showed higher motivation than those in the control class.
The significant gain in the students’ motivation toward learning English in the experimental complained the significant improvement in their language learning which in the consistence with the effectiveness of cooperative learning in boosting learners’ motivation.
The significant gain in the students’ motivation toward learning English in the experimental complained the significant improvement in their language learning which in the consistence with the effectiveness of cooperative learning in boosting learners’ motivation.
( Liang, 1999; Wei, 1997; Yu, 1995 ) 76
Pedagogical Implications
1Most participants with all levels of English proficiency perceived that they had more opportunities to practicetheir listening and speaking abilities in the cooperativelearning classroom than they did in the traditional lecture-based learning classrooms.
2Cooperative learning focused on peer cooperation, which included peer teaching and self learning.
3
Since individual accountability has been found to be an important element of cooperative learning, all group members must make a contribution in order to achieve a group goal.
77
3. Lack of class observation
2. The research time was limited.
1. The sample size was admittedly small.
Limitations of the Study
78
Future research should be done with larger samples of students.
Further research should be done with longer time for the experiment.
Suggestions for Future Study
Further study should conduct the Ethnography.
79
Thank you for your attention!