25
LOGO Effect of cooperative learning on the acquisition of second language rules and machines Shing-Yu Lynn Tsai Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa Hs Date: October 1st, 2009
LOGOEffect of cooperative learning on
the acquisition of second language rules and machines
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
Ghaith, G., & Yaghi, H. ( 1998 ). Effect of cooperative learning on the acquisition of second language rules and mechanics. System 26, 223-234.
2
Contents
Reflection
Results
Methodology
Introduction
3
Introduction
The past few years have been productive in
scholarly advocating the use of cooperative
learning in the L2 classroom.
(Ghaith & Yaghi, 1998)
4
Introduction
A B C
Rich interaction
Organization
framework
Individualized instruction
( Olsen & Kagan, 1992 ) 5
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
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
6
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.
7
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.
8
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.
9
Methodology
ParticipantParticipant
CC
BB
DD
AA318 junior high school students
164 males &154 females
Socio-economic background
Middle Eastern country
10
Participants
Total: 157 students
6 experimental groups:
6 control groups:fourth grade: 2 classes fifth grade: 2 classes sixth grade: 2 classes
11
fourth grade: 2 classes fifth grade: 2 classes sixth grade: 2 classes
Total: 161 students
Methodology
Before
During
During
AfterInstruments
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
12
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.
13
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
14
Methodology
Control Group:Individualistic approach
Treatment
Experimental Group:Cooperative Learning ( STAD )
3 units for fourth Ss3 units for fifth Ss3 units for sixth Ss( units are from English art ESL program for six weeks)
3 units for fourth Ss3 units for fifth Ss3 units for sixth Ss( units are from English art ESL program for six weeks )
15
Methodology
6 teachers
6 years of full-time service
training in using STAD
TeachersTeachers
16
Procedure
Teacher’spresentation
Individualquizzes
Learningexercises
Correct own work
Team study
STAD
17
Teachers’ observation
Observation notes Observation notes
Impressionistic reports Impressionistic reports
students’ behaviorstudents’
interaction
students’ behaviorstudents’
interaction
18
Methodology
Statistical analysisT-test ( Q2 )
Statistical analysisTwo-way factor
analysis ofcovariance (ANCOVA)
( Q1 & Q3 )
19
ResultsTable 1Analysis of Covariance Results Using the Post-Test Scores as a Dependent Variable and the Pre-Test Scores as Covariance
20
There was no significantly interaction between There was no significantly interaction between the participants’ achievement level and their the participants’ achievement level and their acquisition of ESL rules and mechanics. acquisition of ESL rules and mechanics.
There was no significantly interaction between There was no significantly interaction between the participants’ achievement level and their the participants’ achievement level and their acquisition of ESL rules and mechanics. acquisition of ESL rules and mechanics.
Results Table 2
Comparison of the Relative Gains of Low Achievers and High Achievers in the Experimental Group
21
Low-achieving students in the experimental Low-achieving students in the experimental group would gain relatively more than their group would gain relatively more than their high-achieving counterparts in the same group. high-achieving counterparts in the same group.
Low-achieving students in the experimental Low-achieving students in the experimental group would gain relatively more than their group would gain relatively more than their high-achieving counterparts in the same group. high-achieving counterparts in the same group.
Results Table 3
Comparison of the Relative Gains of High Achievers Both in the Control and Experimental Groups
22
High achievers in the experimental group gainedHigh achievers in the experimental group gainedat least as their high-achieving counterparts in at least as their high-achieving counterparts in the control group. the control group.
High achievers in the experimental group gainedHigh achievers in the experimental group gainedat least as their high-achieving counterparts in at least as their high-achieving counterparts in the control group. the control group.
Reflection
？？How did the researchers divide students into high and low achievers?
？？ Why did the researchers not interview the participants?
23
Reflection
24
What did the researchers find out during the observation?？？
？？ Why did the researcher provide the units’ contents?
LOGO
www.themegallery.com
