Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Power Point Proposoal
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Power Point Proposoal

1,492

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,492
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
25
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. The Effect of Ability Grouping on Students’ Reading Strategy use and Reading Comprehension in the EFL ClassroomTemplate<br />Presenter: York Chi<br />Advisor: Dr. Chin-Ling Lee<br />Date: December 31, 2009<br />
  2. Content<br />2<br />1<br />Introduction<br />2<br />Literature Review<br />3<br />Methodology<br />
  3. Introduction<br />Background of the Study<br />Statement of the Problem<br />Purpose of the study<br />Research Questions<br />3<br />
  4. Background of the Study<br />Reading is perhaps the most important skill for learner of English who desire to achieve success in English<br /> (Anderson, 2006)<br />4<br />
  5. Background of the Study <br />Reading is the essential means for learning new information and it has been the potential of opening new ways of viewing the world and transforming the world .<br /> (Grabe & Sroller, 2001; Hudelson, 1994)<br />5<br />
  6. Statement of Problem<br />Teachers give little attention to students’ prior knowledge, usage of reading strategies, andmeta-cognitive abilities.<br /> (Chiu, 1998; Lee, 2003)<br />6<br />
  7. Statement of Problem<br />The teacher-center teaching method does not involve all students with their learning since some students are likely not care about what is taught.<br />(Chen, 1998)<br />7<br />
  8. Purpose of the Study<br />To investigate the effect of ability grouping on students’ reading achievement<br />To investigate whether ability grouping drew out significant differences on students reading strategy use and learning motivation in an EFL cooperating classroom<br />8<br />
  9. Research Questions<br />9<br />Are there any differences on the reading strategy use between the two grouping condition?<br />Are there any significant differences on the achievement outcome on reading comprehension between the two grouping condition? <br />1<br />2<br />
  10. Research Questions<br />10<br />What are students’ learning motivation toward English learning in a cooperative learning group?<br />3<br />
  11. Cooperative learning<br />Reading Strategies<br />Learning Motivation<br />Homogeneous Ability Grouping<br />Heterogeneous Ability Grouping<br />Literature Review <br />
  12. Cooperative Learning<br />Cooperative learning is a way for students to help each other maximize their learning by the instructional use of small groups.<br /> (Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec, 1994)<br />12<br />
  13. Cooperative Learning <br />Increase students’ intrinsic motivation<br />Build students’ self-confidence<br />Add Your Text<br />Add Your Text<br />Create concern an altruistic relationships<br />Decrease anxiety and prejudice<br />Add Your Text<br />Add Your Text<br />(Oxford , 1997) <br />
  14. Cooperative Learning <br />2<br />1<br />3<br />4<br />Offers an embracing affective climate<br />Generates interactive language<br />Group work<br />Promotes learner responsibility and autonomy<br />A step toward individualizing instruction<br />(Brown, 2001) <br />
  15. Cooperative Learning<br />Individual Accountability<br />Social and Small Group Skill<br />Positive Interdependence<br />2<br />3<br />1<br />Cooperative Learning<br />Face to Face Interaction<br />4<br />Group Processing<br />5<br />
  16. Reading Strategies<br />Reading strategies refers to the deliberate mental operations or actions that readers take voluntarilyandpurposefullyto develop an understanding of what they read.<br /> (Pritchard, 1990)<br />16<br />
  17. Indirect Strategies<br />Direct Strategies<br />Reading Strategies<br />Memory<br />Metacognitive<br />SILL<br />SILL<br />Affective<br />Cognitive<br />Compensation<br />Social<br />(Oxford, 1990)<br />
  18. Learning Motivation<br />Motivation determines the extent of individual learners’ involvement in L2 learning<br /> (Oxford & Shearin, 1994) <br />18<br />
  19. Learning Motivation<br />Motivation is a key factor that influences the extent to which learners are ready to learn autonomously. <br /> (Spratt et al, 2002)<br />19<br />
  20. Homogeneous Ability Grouping<br />Homogeneous ability grouping allows teachers to apply different instruction to the need of students of different academic levels, with an opportunity to offer high achieve more difficult material and to provide low achievers more support.<br /> (Feldhusen, 1989)<br />20<br />
  21. Heterogeneous Ability Grouping <br />High ability students participate and learn as least as well as in heterogeneous group and seem to benefit from working with people of diverse ability.<br />(Johnson & Johnson, 1985)<br />21<br />
  22. Methodology<br />Participants<br />Procedure of the study <br />Experimental Designed<br />Instruments<br />Data Analysis<br />
  23. Participants<br />Participants<br />30 undergraduate students from NTIT<br />English reading class<br />International Trade<br />19-26 years old<br />
  24. Procedure of the Study<br />Pilot study<br />Formal study<br />Heterogeneous group<br />Homogeneous group<br />Pre-test<br />Reading test<br />SILL questionnaire <br />Learning motivation questionnaire<br />Pre-test<br />Reading test<br />SILL questionnaire<br />Learning motivation questionnaire<br />
  25. Procedure of the Study<br />25<br />Heterogeneous group<br />Homogeneous group<br />Reading instruction<br />Reading instruction<br />Post-test<br />Reading test at post-test<br />SILL questionnaire<br />Learning motivation questionnaire<br />Post-test<br />Reading at post-test<br />SILL questionnaire<br />Learning motivation questionnaire<br />
  26. Experimental Designed <br />Englishreading Classroom<br />Heterogeneous groups<br />15 participants<br />One semester<br />Same material <br />Same instructor <br />Homogeneous groups<br />15 participants<br /> One semester<br /> Same material<br /> Same instructor<br />Fuzzy C mean<br />Excel<br />
  27. Instruments <br />GEPT reading test (Basic level)<br />Strategy Inventory For Language Learning (SILL) questionnaire<br />1<br />Learning Motivation<br />3<br />2<br />
  28. Questionnaire<br />28<br />1<br />5<br />2<br />3<br />4<br />Strongly agree<br />Strongly disagree<br />Personal information<br />Part 1<br />Part 2<br />Strategy Inventory for Language Learning( Oxford, 1990)<br /> Part 3<br />The Motivation questionnaire (Clement et al, 1994)<br />
  29. Questionnaire<br />29<br />Memory <br />Items 1 to 9<br />Cognitive<br /> Items 10 to 23<br />Compensation <br />Items 24 to 29 <br />Metacogitive<br /> Items 30 to 38<br /> Affective<br />Items 39 to 44<br /> Social <br />Items 45 to 50<br />
  30. Questionnaire<br />30<br />1 <br />integrative <br />instrumental <br />2 <br />motivation achieving learning goal <br />3 <br />
  31. Questionnaire<br />Part 1. Personal information<br />31<br />
  32. Questionnaire<br />32<br />Part 2. SILL<br />
  33. Questionnaire<br />33<br />Part 3. Learning Motivation<br />
  34. Data Analysis <br />34<br />SPSS version 13.0<br />To exam the difference on group, gender, andachieverto students’ performance and strategy use<br />Independent T test<br />To exam the relationship between strategy use and learning motivation<br />Pearson Correlation<br />To exam the reliability of the two questionnaires<br />Cronbach’s alpha<br />
  35. Thank You !<br />www.themegallery.com<br />

×