This study examined the effects of cooperative learning versus individualistic instruction on the acquisition of English grammar rules and mechanics by 318 junior high school students in the Middle East. Students were divided into experimental and control groups. The experimental groups used cooperative learning techniques while control groups used individual instruction. Pre- and post-tests were administered and teachers observed students. Results showed no difference in outcomes between high- and low-achieving students. Cooperative learning was at least as effective as individual instruction and benefited low-achieving students more without negatively impacting high-achievers.

1. Effect of cooperative learning on the acquisition of second language rules and machines Shing-Yu Lynn Tsai Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa Hsu Date: October 1st, 2009

2. Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. ( 1998 ). Effect of cooperative learning on the acquisition of second language rules and mechanics. System 26 , 223-234.

3. Contents Reflection Results Methodology Introduction

4. Introduction The past few years have been productive in scholarly advocating the use of cooperative learning in the L2 classroom. (Ghaith & Yaghi, 1998)

5. Introduction A B C Rich interaction Organization framework Individualized instruction ( Olsen & Kagan, 1992 )

6. Introduction Purpose: to examine the effects of cooperative learning on the acquisition of ESL rules and mechanics by low-and high-achieving learners in comparison with equal counterparts studying the same content according to an individualistic method of instruction

7. Research Questions Q1: Is there a general effect of the participants’ level of achievement on their acquisition of ESL rules and mechanics? There was no significant interaction between the participants’ achievement level and their acquisition of ESL rules and mechanics.

8. Research Questions Q2: Is cooperative learning more effective than individualistic instruction in the acquisition of ESL rules and mechanics? The overall effect of cooperative learning was at least equal to that of individualistic instruction in helping ESL learners acquire the rules and mechanics.

9. Research Questions Q3: Do low-achieving ESL learners in the treatment group benefit more than their high-achieving counterparts, and if so, are the relative gains made at the expense of the high achievers in the same group? Yes, cooperative learning could be beneficial for low achieving learners who managed to achieve relatively more gains than their high-achieving group-mates through not at the expense of the latter.

10. Methodology Participant 318 junior high school students 164 males & 154 females Socio-economic background Middle Eastern country C B D A

11. Participants Total: 157 students 6 experimental groups: 6 control groups: fourth grade: 2 classes fifth grade: 2 classes sixth grade: 2 classes fourth grade: 2 classes fifth grade: 2 classes sixth grade: 2 classes Total: 161 students

12. Methodology Before During During After Instruments EG: cooperative learning ( Students’ Teams Achievement Division ) CG: individualistic approach Researchers’ observation during the period of experimentation Pre-test for fourth, fifth, sixth students Post-test for fourth, fifth, sixth students

13. Pre-test & Post-test Fourth grade Ss: Yesterday we go to the park. (went) (well) ( themselves ) Fifth grade Ss: He plays the piano good. Sixth grade Ss: They bought theirselves a new reference book.

14. Pre-test & Post-test The teachers and researchers were matched. The researchers checked whether the test items match the objectives. Teachers assessed relevance of pre-test & post-test to the course objectives. Validity

15. Methodology Control Group: Individualistic approach Treatment Experimental Group: Cooperative Learning ( STAD ) 3 units for fourth Ss 3 units for fifth Ss 3 units for sixth Ss ( units are from English art ESL program for six weeks) 3 units for fourth Ss 3 units for fifth Ss 3 units for sixth Ss ( units are from English art ESL program for six weeks )

16. Methodology 6 teachers 6 years of full-time service training in using STAD Teachers

17. Procedure Teacher’s presentation Individual quizzes Learning exercises Correct own work Team study STAD

18. Teachers’ observation Observation notes Impressionistic reports students’ behavior students’ interaction

19. Methodology Statistical analysis T-test ( Q2 ) Statistical analysis Two-way factor analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) ( Q1 & Q3 )

20. Results Table 1 Analysis of Covariance Results Using the Post-Test Scores as a Dependent Variable and the Pre-Test Scores as Covariance There was no significantly interaction between the participants’ achievement level and their acquisition of ESL rules and mechanics.

21. Results Table 2 Comparison of the Relative Gains of Low Achievers and High Achievers in the Experimental Group Low-achieving students in the experimental group would gain relatively more than their high-achieving counterparts in the same group.

22. Results Table 3 Comparison of the Relative Gains of High Achievers Both in the Control and Experimental Groups High achievers in the experimental group gained at least as their high-achieving counterparts in the control group.

23. Reflection ？ How did the researchers divide students into high and low achievers? ？ Why did the researchers not interview the participants?

24. Reflection What did the researchers find out during the observation? ？ ？ Why did the researcher provide the units’ contents?

25. www.themegallery.com Thank You !