1. The effect of cooperative learning techniques on college students’ reading comprehension Presenter: York Chi Instructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Hsu Date: May 5, 2010
2. <ul><li>Jalilifar, A. (2010). The effect of cooperative learning techniques on college students’ reading comprehension. System, 38, 96-108. </li></ul>
3. Contents Reflection Results & Conclusion Methodology Introduction
4. Introduction <ul><li>One of the main problems confronting English as a Foreign Language (EFL) learners is how to improve their reading comprehension achievement. </li></ul><ul><li>(Jalilifar, 2010) </li></ul>
5. Introduction <ul><li>Researchers have been interested in investigating strategies that help students have better understanding when they read. </li></ul><ul><li>(Al Haidari, 2006; Hollingsworth et al., 2007) </li></ul>
6. Introduction <ul><li>Different approaches such as Cooperative learning (CL) and Conventional Instruction (CI) have been generally used in classroom. </li></ul><ul><li>(Jalilifar, 2010) </li></ul>
7. Introduction <ul><li>There is still doubt that CL techniques such as Student Team-Achievement Divisions ( STAD) and Group Investigation (GI) can promote reading comprehension. </li></ul>
8. Purpose of the study <ul><li>-to investigate the effectiveness of STAD and GI in improving college students’ reading comprehension achievement </li></ul>
9. Research Questions 1 2 If so, which one is more effective? Are there any differences in terms of reading comprehension quality between EFL learners who are instructed according to the CI and those with whom the techniques CL are utilized?
10. Research Questions 3 Would the use of STAD or GI yield any differences in students’ gains in reading comprehension?
11. Conceptual Framework 1 2 3 4 STAD Listen to teacher’s explanation of material Work in mixed groups to complete activities or worksheets Take individual quizzes Recognize the team achievement (Ghaithe, 2004)
12. Conceptual Framework <ul><li>Group Investigation enables students to work actively and collaboratively in small groups and allows them to take and active role in determining their own learning goals and processes. </li></ul><ul><li>(Huhtala, 1994) </li></ul>
13. Conceptual Framework Students form small interest groups Plan and implement their investigation Synthesize information to produce a final product Participate in the class presentation GI
14. Methodology Subjects Instruments Procedure
15. Participants Participants 90 female students chosen from 140 students in Dehdasht Taken from General English course Dehdasht South West of Iran College level students Level: Pre-intermediate B E C D A
17. Instruments Nelson Battery-section 300A (r= .75) Standardized reading comprehension test ( r= .73) Teacher-made test 1 Teacher-made test 2
18. Procedure of the study Nelson English Language Proficiency Test STAD group ( 30 subjects) GI group ( 30 subjects) CI group ( 30 subjects)
19. Procedure of the study STAD group GI group CI group <ul><li>Instructed by </li></ul><ul><li>the same teacher </li></ul><ul><li>2 . Two month </li></ul><ul><li>experiment(16 </li></ul><ul><li>sessions) </li></ul><ul><li>3. 45 minutes reading </li></ul><ul><li>period for each </li></ul><ul><li>session </li></ul>
20. Procedure of the study STAD group GI group CI group Receive STAD instruction Receive GI instruction Teachers’ lecture Individual quizzes Individual practice Post-test Nelson English Language Proficiency Test Group presentation
21. Methodology One-way ANOVA to examine the difference among the participants’ score on the Nelson English Language Proficiency Test to examine whether or not the observed differences among the participants’ mean on the post-test were statistically significant
22. Methodology Post hoc Scheffe test to determine where precisely the significance lay
23. Results <ul><li>The groups’ mean were approximately similar on the Language Proficiency Test before the treatment </li></ul>
24. Results <ul><li>Better performance of students who received instruction through STAD technique </li></ul>
25. Results <ul><li>The differences among the participants’ means on the post test were statistically significant </li></ul>
26. Results <ul><li>Significant differences was found between the experimental group A and the control group C </li></ul>
27. Results <ul><li>The difference between the achievement mean of experimental group B and control group C was not statistically meaningful </li></ul>
28. Results <ul><li>No significant difference was found comparing the achievement means of the STAD and GI groups </li></ul>
29. Conclusion <ul><li>It is important for students to receive explicit instruction in specific reading comprehension strategies such as summaries, headings , identifying main ideas , and self regulation skills . </li></ul>
30. Conclusion <ul><li>Simply putting students in groups does not guarantee positive results. </li></ul>
31. Reflection The researcher provides sample items about the teacher- made quizzes and worksheets. The researcher did not provide detail information about the reading materials.
32. Reflection The Nelson English Proficiency Test seems to be old (Fowler and Coe, 1976) The researcher did not provide sample item about the Nelson English Proficiency Test.
33. Reflection The researcher only recruited 90 female students as participants in this study. Why?