• Like
9722601蔡幸瑜Lynn
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

9722601蔡幸瑜Lynn

  • 405 views
Published

 

Published in Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
405
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Learners’ perception of their STAD cooperative experience Shing-Yu Lynn Tsai Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa Hsu Date: March 16, 2009
  • 2.
    • Ghaith, G. (2001). Learners’ perception
    • of their STAD cooperative experience.
    • System 29 , 289-301.
  • 3. STAD Student S Divisions D Teams- Achievement TA
  • 4. STAD Role Play The Teacher lectures materials & assigns a context ( at the restaurant) Team members are assigned the roles( waiters, customers) The team members show their performance. Team members practice the conversation. ( How to order the meal? ) D B C A
  • 5. Contents Reflection Limitation IV. Introduction I. Methodology II. Result III. V.
  • 6. Introduction
    • The application of cooperative learning:
    • It suggested that learners working together acquire
    • more language and social skills than their counterparts
    • studying the same content under individualistic
    • classroom conditions.
    • (Bossert, 1988; Johnson, 1988)
  • 7. Introduction
    • Purposes:
    It investigated middle school learners’ perceptions of the enjoyableness and effective of the STAD strategy in teaching EFL. It examined the effect of gender and prior achievement on learners’ perceptions of their cooperative experience.
  • 8. Introduction positive interdependence individual accountability Principles of Cooperative Learning heterogeneous grouping equal opportunity
  • 9. Research Questions Q1:What do middle school learners think of their STAD experience? The participants’ perceptions of their STAD experience tend to be on the positive rather than negative.
  • 10. Research Questions Q2: Do high-achieving learners differ from the low-achieving learners in their perception of their STAD experience? Yes, high achievers had more contribution than low achievers.
  • 11. Research Questions Q3: Do male and female learners differ in their perception of their STAD experience? Most of males’ perception were more positive than females’. However the male participants didn’t recommend the use of STAD while all of the female participants recommended use of this strategy.
  • 12. Methodology Participants Place Lebanon Grouping 30 low achievers 31 high achievers 61 seventh-grade students enrolled in EFL sections of junior high school
  • 13. Lebanon
  • 14. Instrument the participants’ perceptions of the amount of their own learning Semantic Differential Scale whether they would recommend CL in other class or not their perception of the amount of their contribution to the learning of their group mates
  • 15. Treatment Period Program Group Language art program 12 weeks 14 heterogonous teams- mixed-gender & mix-ability
  • 16. Treatment Team recognition Teacher’s lecture Individual quizzes Team study The STAD cooperative strategy
  • 17. Statistical analysis Pearson Chi-square Independent variables: gender & achievement ( Q2 & Q3) Pearson Chi-square Dependent variables: the participants’ responses to the scale
  • 18. Result
    • Table 1
    • Percentages of response by gender
    Scale Useful Not frustrating Fun Interesting Worthwhile Clear Learning Recommend Contribution Female 36% 30% 49% 60% 53% 50% 49% 61% 49% Male 66% 66% 53% 62% 58% 80% 83% 33% 55% Most of male participants were more positive than female. However, most of female recommended this strategy.
  • 19. Result
    • Table 2
    • Percentages of response by achievement level
    For the contribution part, high achievers had more contribution than low achievers. Scale Useful Not frustrating Fun Interesting Worthwhile Clear Learning Recommend Contribution Low 53% 23% 53% 63% 52% 75% 63% 60% 33% High 51% 36% 51% 68% 61% 69% 74% 57% 74%
  • 20. Limitation The researchers divided students into high achievers and low achievers. Are there any intermediate students? ?
  • 21. Reflection Do you think it is fair? Yes / No R H High Low
  • 22.
    • Thank you for your listening!