Ppt for final defense0524 teresa final version

2,077 views
1,952 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,077
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
51
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Ppt for final defense0524 teresa final version

  1. 1. The Effectiveness of Applying Cooperative Learning to the EFL Classroom in a Technological University Presenter: Shing-Yu Tsai Advisor: Dr. Chin-Ling Lee Date: May 25, 2009
  2. 2. Contents Introduction Literature Review Methodology Results and Discussions Conclusions and Suggestions 1 2 3 4 5
  3. 3. Definition of Terms Research Questions Purposes of the Study Statements of the Problems Background of the Study Introduction
  4. 4. Background of the Study <ul><li>The globalization phenomenon has undoubtedly </li></ul><ul><li>taken place, and English has arisen as the most </li></ul><ul><li>common language for worldwide communication . </li></ul>( Falits & Hudelson, 1998; McCrum, MacNeil, & Cran, 2002 )
  5. 5. Background of the Study <ul><li>Among the four English language skills, English </li></ul><ul><li>speaking proficiency has recently drawn a great deal </li></ul><ul><li>of attention in Taiwan, since it plays an important </li></ul><ul><li>role in tourism, business, and cultural exchange in </li></ul><ul><li>the global village. </li></ul><ul><li>( Chang, 2008; Hsu, 2004; Wang, 2008 ) </li></ul>
  6. 6. Background of the Study Grammar-Translation Method (GTM) Inadequate Learning Environments Reasons ( Chen, 2004; Huang, 1999 )
  7. 7. Statements of the Study GTM ( Lai, 2002; Tsai, 1998; Yu, 1995; Wei & Chen, 1993 ) 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
  8. 8. Statements of the Study <ul><li>P revious 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. </li></ul><ul><li>( Lee, 2004 ) </li></ul>
  9. 9. Purposes of the Study 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. 10. Purposes of the Study To examine the differences in conceptual learning style preferences and learning motivation among students in cooperative learning and traditional lecture-based learning To 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
  11. 11. Research Questions Are there any differences between the effects of the cooperative learning and those of the traditional lecture-based learning on students’ listening achievement? 2 Are there any differences between the effects of the cooperative learning and those of the traditional lecture-based learning on students’ oral achievement? 1
  12. 12. Research Questions 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 ? Are there any differences between the effects of the cooperative learning and those of the traditional lecture-based learning on students’ learning motivation ? 3 4
  13. 13. Research Questions What main elements comprise 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? 5 6
  14. 14. Definition of Terms <ul><li>High and Low English Achievers </li></ul><ul><li>I n the field of testing and assessment , the </li></ul><ul><li>preferred method to compare the higher </li></ul><ul><li>and the lower groups is to select samples </li></ul><ul><li>from the top and the bottom 25% to 33%; </li></ul><ul><li>sampling the top and bottom 27% is </li></ul><ul><li>recommended. </li></ul><ul><li>( Chen & Lin, 2009; Wu, 2007 ) </li></ul>
  15. 15. Literature Review Communicative Competence C ooperative Learning Perceptual Language Learning Style Preferences L anguage Learning Motivation
  16. 16. Communicative Competence <ul><li>Communicative competence was the expression </li></ul><ul><li>of sociolinguistic that regarded language as social behavior . </li></ul><ul><li>( Wellman, 2002 ) </li></ul>
  17. 17. Cooperative Learning <ul><li>Cooperative group made students of different performance levels engage in instructional </li></ul><ul><li>methods to pursue a common goal . </li></ul><ul><li>( Ha¨nze & Berger, 2007; Slavin, 1987 ) </li></ul>
  18. 18. Cooperative Learning ( Liang, 2000 ) It reduced learning anxiety. 1 It increased the amount of students participating in learning activities. 2 It built a supportive learning environment. 3
  19. 19. C ooperative Learning social skills academic achievement Effectiveness (Fenton, 1992; Johnson & Johnson, 1999; Putnam, 1997; Ye, 1993 )
  20. 20. Cooperative Learning <ul><li>Five major factors </li></ul>( Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2000 ) Social and Small Group Skills 4 Group Processing 5 1 Face to Face Interaction 2 Positive Interdependence 1 1 Individual Accountability 3
  21. 21. Cooperative Learning <ul><li>Positive Interdependence </li></ul><ul><li>Positive interdependence created the sense </li></ul><ul><li>that” we sank or swam together ”. Group </li></ul><ul><li>members perceived “all” members as essential </li></ul><ul><li>for group success and worked together towards </li></ul><ul><li>a common goal of each other’s learning. </li></ul><ul><li>( Johnson et al, 2000 ) </li></ul>
  22. 22. Cooperative Learning Positive goal interdependence Resource interdependence Role interdependence ( Johnson et al., 2000 )
  23. 23. C ooperative Learning Face to Face Interaction ( Johnson & Johnson, 2000 ) Click to add Title 1 exchanging needed resources Click to add Title 2 encouraging their group members Click to add Title 1 explaining how to solve problems Click to add Title 2 checking for understanding Click to add Title 1 discussing concepts being learned Click to add Title 2 connecting present with past learning
  24. 24. Cooperative Learning <ul><li>Individual Accountability </li></ul><ul><li>Individual accountability existed when each </li></ul><ul><li>of the group members contributed his or </li></ul><ul><li>her efforts to accomplish the goal. This </li></ul><ul><li>element stressed that group accomplishment </li></ul><ul><li>depended on the coordination of all members’ </li></ul><ul><li>efforts . </li></ul>( Johnson & Johnson, 2000 )
  25. 25. Cooperative Learning interact in leadership decision-making trust-building conflict-managements Social and Small Group Skills ( Karrie & Jennifer, 2008 )
  26. 26. Cooperative Learning <ul><li>Group Processing </li></ul><ul><li>Group processing clarified and improved </li></ul><ul><li>member effectiveness in contributing to </li></ul><ul><li>cooperative efforts to attain the group’s </li></ul><ul><li>goal . </li></ul>( Johnson & Johnson, 2000 )
  27. 27. Perceptual Language Learning Style Preferences <ul><li>Foreign language learners claimed that </li></ul><ul><li>learners’ learning style would determine </li></ul><ul><li>whether they success in the academic </li></ul><ul><li>performance . </li></ul><ul><li>( Castro & Peck, 2005 ) </li></ul>
  28. 28. Language Learning Motivation <ul><li>The correlation between motivation and </li></ul><ul><li>English achievements was very high . </li></ul><ul><li>( Chou, 1989; Huang, 1990; Liang, 2002 ) </li></ul>
  29. 29. Methodology Instruments Participants Research Structure Experimental Design Data Collection Procedure of the Study Data Analysis
  30. 30. Procedure of the Study Pilot Study Formal Study Control Group 1. Pre- test on listening and oral achievements 2. 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
  31. 31. Procedure of the Study Cooperative learning for one semester Traditional lecture-based learning 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 & Analyzing Data Collection & Analyzing
  32. 32. Participants 39 participants English conversation class Department of business Studying English for more than six years Participants 6 males; 33 females Two-year System College
  33. 33. Instruments A questionnaire 2 An English speaking evaluation form 3 An academic achievement test 1 An interview protocol 4
  34. 34. Academic achievement test ( LTTC at elementary level ) Picture description Statement response Questions ( 20 mins ) Read passage Repeat the words Answer questions ( 5 mins ) Listening Speaking
  35. 35. Questionnaire 1 2 3 4 5 strongly disagree strongly agree Permission Consent form Time Consent form: 5 mins Questionnaire: 15 mins
  36. 36. Questionnaire Joy Reid ( 1995 ) Clement et al. ( 1994 ) 28 items 20 items Crobach’s alpha: .87 Crobach’s alpha: .95 Perceptual Learning-Style Preferences  Learning Motivation
  37. 37. Questionnaire Part 3 Perceptual Learning-style Preferences Learning Motivation Part 2 Part 1 Individual Background Survey
  38. 38. Questionnaire visual auditory tactile kinesthetic group integrative instrumental motivational achieving learning goal age gender experiences proficiency questionnaire.doc IBS  PLPQ  QLM subscales
  39. 39. English speaking evaluation form Content:20% Grammar:20% Vocabulary:20% Fluency:20% Appropriateness: 20% (Chang, 2003)
  40. 40. English speaking evaluation form <ul><li>Two raters: </li></ul><ul><li>Class instructor </li></ul><ul><li>Teaching English for </li></ul><ul><li>more than 15 years </li></ul><ul><li>Expertise on </li></ul><ul><li>cooperative learning </li></ul><ul><li>Experienced </li></ul><ul><li>English institute </li></ul><ul><li>for many years </li></ul>
  41. 41. Interview Protocol <ul><li>I nterview concern: </li></ul>( Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 2000 ) social and small group skills 4 group processing 5 1 face to face interaction 2 positive interdependence 1 1 individual accountability 3
  42. 42. Interview 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 group Control group Interviewee Time Tool Language
  43. 43. Experimental Design Experimental Group: Control Group: ED 23 participants 16 participants Traditional lecture-based learning Cooperative learning One semester One semester Two periods a week Two periods a week Same material Same material Same instructor Same instructor Heterogeneous grouping No heterogeneous grouping
  44. 44. Grouping Group Two intermediate achievers One high achiever One low achiever
  45. 45. Control Group Traditional lecture-based learning: Students listened to and repeated dialogue. A Students worked independently and competed with one another. B The teacher was the instructor while students were listeners. 3 C
  46. 46. Experimental Group <ul><li>Cooperative learning: </li></ul>Jigsaw II STAD (Student-Team-Achievement- Divisions) CL CL
  47. 47. STAD STAD teacher’s lecture team study group recognition class presentation individual quizzes B E C D A
  48. 48. Jigsaw II teacher’s lecture cooperative groups preparation pairs practice pairs team performance
  49. 49. Data Collection A B C The scores of academic achievements : listening &oral The results of questionnaire: learning style preferences & learning motivation Individual interview: control & experimental group
  50. 50. Data Analysis Post-test of the learning achievements, responses of learning style preferences and learning motivation (Q1, Q2,Q3, Q4) The significant differences between two classes (Q1, Q2,Q3, Q4) Interview (Q5, Q6) ANCOVA Independent Samples Test Constant Comparative Analysis
  51. 51. Constant comparative data analysis ( Glaser & Strauss, 1967 ) 1 comparing incidents to each category 2 integrating categories and their properties 3 delimiting the theory 4 writing the theory
  52. 52. Results of Achievements <ul><li>Q1: Are there any differences between the effects of the cooperative learning </li></ul><ul><li>and those of the traditional lecture-based learning on students’ </li></ul><ul><li>listening achievement? </li></ul>Table 1 Summary of Analysis of One-Way ANCOVA on the Comparison of the Posttest Scores on Listening of the Two Groups Note. *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 Total 8857.69 38
  53. 53. Results of Achievements Table 2 Descriptive 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. Note. *p<.05 Pre Post MD t p Adjusted Means Experimental 75.13 86.63 11.5 -5.12 .00* 87.53 Control 78.09 67.70 10.39 3.75 .00* 67.06
  54. 54. Results of Achievements <ul><li>Q2: Are there any differences between the effects of the cooperative learning </li></ul><ul><li>and those of the traditional lecture-based learning on students’ oral </li></ul><ul><li>achievement? </li></ul>Table 3 Summary of Analysis of One-Way ANCOVA on the Comparison of the Posttest Scores on Oral Achievement of the Two Groups Note. *p<.05 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 Total 10868.31 38
  55. 55. Results of Achievements Table 4 Descriptive 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 Note. *p<.05 Pre Post MD t p Adjusted Means Experimental 62.25 78.88 16.63 -6.31 .00* 80.09 Control 67.74 68.39 0.65 -0.14 .89 67.54
  56. 56. Results of Questionnaires <ul><li>Q3 : Are there any differences between the effects of the cooperative learning </li></ul><ul><li>and those of the traditional lecture-based learning on students’ </li></ul><ul><li>conceptual learning style preferences ? </li></ul>Table 5 Summary of Analysis of One-Way ANCOVA on the Comparison of the Posttest Scores on Learning Style Preferences of the Two Groups Note. *p<.05 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 Total 12.47 38
  57. 57. Results of Questionnaires Table 6 Descriptive 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 . Note. *p<.05 Pre Post MD t p Adjusted Means Experimental 3.76 3.31 0.45 3.42 .00* 4.00 Control 3.80 3.85 0.04 -.35 .73 3.32
  58. 58. Results of Questionnaires <ul><li>Q4: Are there any differences between the effects of the cooperative learning </li></ul><ul><li>and those of the traditional lecture-based learning on students’ learning </li></ul><ul><li>motivation ? </li></ul>Table 7 Summary of Analysis of One-Way ANCOVA on the Comparison of the Posttest Scores on Learning Motivation of the Two Groups Note. *p<.05 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
  59. 59. Results of Questionnaires Table 8 Descriptive 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. Note. *p<.05 Pre Post MD t p Adjusted Means Experimental 3.97 3.51 0.46 2.53 .02* 3.10 Control 3.77 4.01 0.25 -1.59 .13 3.52
  60. 60. Data Analyses of Interviews <ul><li>Table 9 </li></ul><ul><li>Profile of the participants </li></ul>Code Gender Year of English Learning English Proficiency Group I Female 7 Low Experimental II Female 6 Low Experimental III Female 6 Intermediate Experimental IV Male 8 High Experimental V Female 7 High Experimental VI Female 7 Intermediate Experimental VII Female 7 Intermediate Control VIII Male 6 High Control IX Female 6 High Control X Female 8 Low Control XI Female 7 Intermediate Control XII Female 6 Low Control
  61. 61. Interview Protocol How would you describe your learning experiences toward the instructional strategies and learning activities of the class you attended? 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 frustrating situations you found in English learning class? Part I: The elements of students’ viewpoints in the EFL classroom
  62. 62. Interview Protocol Tell me how to solve the problems in 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 Would you describe an ideal English learning class?
  63. 63. Data Analyses of Interviews Table 10 How would you describe your learning experiences toward the instructional strategies and learning activities of the class you attended?
  64. 64. Data Analyses of Interviews Table 12 How would you describe your learning experiences toward the instructional strategies and learning activities of the class you attended?
  65. 65. Interview Protocol 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 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 Variables affect students’ learning in the EFL classroom
  66. 66. Data Analyses of Interviews Table 13 What would you consider to be used for supportive facilities in English learning classroom?
  67. 67. Data Analyses of Interviews Table 14 What would you consider to be used for supportive facilities in English learning classroom? Research Questions Interview Questions Responses Participants <ul><li>variables affect the learning in the EFL classroom </li></ul>2. be used for supportive facilities in English learning classroom 01 material & supplementary 02 CALL 03 learning activities I,III,XI,XII,VI,VII, VIII,IX II,V IV
  68. 68. Development of the Conceptual Framework <ul><li>Q5:What main elements consist of the viewpoints of EFL learners in the cooperative </li></ul><ul><li>learning class and traditional lecture-based method class? </li></ul>
  69. 69. Development of the Model <ul><li>Q6: What variables affect the viewpoints of EFL learners in the cooperative learning class and traditional lecture-based learning class? </li></ul>
  70. 70. Conclusions Suggestions for Future Study 4 Conclusions and Discussions 1 Pedagogical Implications 2 Limitations of the Study 3
  71. 71. Conclusions and Discussions The highly interactive settings would enable learners to gain better communicative competence in language learning. ( Kagan,1995 ) 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.
  72. 72. Conclusions and Discussions The increase of student talk through comprehensible input , interactions , and output contributed to the students’ oral communicative competence. ( Chai, 1998; Liang, 2002; Wei, 1997 ) ( Liang, 2002 ) Student’s potentials for English learning could be well inspired through the frequent exchange of target language with the classmates.
  73. 73. Conclusions and Discussions 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. 74. Conclusions and Discussions ( Castro & Peck, 2005) 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.
  75. 75. Conclusions and Discussions 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. 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.
  76. 76. Conclusions and Discussions 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 . ( Liang, 1999; Wei, 1997; Yu, 1995 )
  77. 77. Pedagogical Implications 1 Most participants with all levels of English proficiency perceived that they had more opportunities to practice their listening and speaking abilities in the cooperative learning classroom than they did in the traditional lecture-based learning classrooms. 2 Cooperative 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.
  78. 78. Limitations of the Study 3. Lack of class observation 2. T he research time was limited. 1. The sample size was admittedly small.
  79. 79. Suggestions for Future Study Future research should be done with larger samples of students. Further research should be done with longer time for the experiment. Further study should conduct the Ethnography.
  80. 80. Thank you for your attention!

×