Ppt for final defense0524 teresa final version

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


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 )


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


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


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


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


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 )


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 )


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


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


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 )


25

interact in leadership

decision-making

trust-building

conflict-managements

Social and Small Group Skills

( Karrie & Jennifer, 2008 )


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


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



the pre-test

Experimental Group


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



the post-test

Post-test 1. Post-test on listening and

oral achievements 2. Two questionnaires on



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


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



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


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



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


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


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


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



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


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



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


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?



Would you describe an ideal English learning class?Would you describe an ideal English learning class?


63

Table 10How would you describe your learning experiences toward the instructional strategies and learning activities of the class you attended?


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


66

Table 13What would you consider to be used for supportive facilities in English learning classroom?


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 )


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 )


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)


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)


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.


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!

Education

Ppt for final defense0524 teresa final version