The Effects of using Cooperative Learning on EFL learners' performance. Badraddin Balal. Jazan University, Saudi Arabia

Transcription

1 The Effects of using Cooperative Learning on EFL learners' performance. Badraddin Balal Jazan University, Saudi Arabia 0119 The European Conference on Language Learning 2013 Official Conference Proceedings 2013 Abstract The purpose of this study is to examine the effects of cooperative learning on EFL learners' performance in Saudi Arabia.The sample consisted of 32 students who were selected randomly from two classes of the second year secondary school students in Riyadh in Saudi Arabia.The experimental class was taught through cooperative learning for one semester with the methods of Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD). The control class was taught in the traditional method of Grammar Translation with some of the Audio- Lingual approach. Data were collected via observation and tests(pre-test and post-test). The researcher found that students taught through cooperative learning achieved better academic performance inside the classroom and in the final year exam; the researcher found that the use of cooperative learning method has positive effects on EFL learners' performance and cooperative learning approach is more effective than the other non-cooperative learning approaches. KEYWORDS: Co-operation, Individualistic, Competition. iafor The International Academic Forum

2 INTRODUCTION Cooperation is working together to accomplish shared goals. Within cooperative activities, individuals seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves and beneficial to all other group members. Cooperative learning is the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other's learning. In the groups, students are expected to help each other to find answers to questions, rather than seeking answers from the teacher (Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Slavin, 1995). Cooperative efforts result in participants striving for mutual benefit so that all group members gain from each other's efforts (Your success benefits me and my success benefits you), knowing that one's performance is mutually caused by oneself and one's colleagues (We cannot do it without you) (Deutsch, 1962; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Researchers report that, regardless of the subject matter, students working in small groups tend to learn more of what is taught and retain it longer than when the same content is presented in other teaching techniques. Now cooperative learning is applied all over the world, and is claimed to be an effective teaching method in foreign language education by scholars (Johnson & Johnson, 1990; Slavin, 1995). It is generally believed that cooperative learning is the best option for all students because it emphasizes active interaction between students of different abilities and backgrounds and demonstrates more positive student outcomes in academic achievement. The idea of Cooperative learning is simple. Class members are organized into small groups after receiving instruction from the teacher. They then work through the task until all group members successfully understand and complete it. In cooperative learning situations, there is a positive interdependence among students' goal achievement; students perceive that they can reach their learning goals if and only if the other students in the learning group also reach theirs. A team member's success depends on both individual effort and the efforts of other group members who contribute needed knowledge, skills, and resources (Deutsch, 1962; Johnson & Johnson, 1989). Statement of the Problem The researcher thinks that there is a weakness in enhancing EFL learners performance. Most of Saudi EFL learners and teachers face difficulties in improving participation, interest, attendance, performance and promoting comfort and confidence within the classroom. Objectives: The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of the cooperative learning approach on student achievement and to better understand the impact of small-group learning on students learning outcomes.

3 Literature Review Several studies have examined the effects of cooperative learning methods on student learning. Humphreys, Johnson, and Johnson (1982) compared cooperative, competitive, and individualistic strategies in science classes and found that students who were taught by cooperative learning method learned and recalled meaningfully more information than students taught by the other traditional methods (competitive and individualistic). Sherman and Thomas (1986) also found similar results in a study involving high school general mathematics classes taught by cooperative learning strategy on one side and individualistic methods on the other side. Allen and Van Sickle (1984) used STAD as the experimental treatment in a study including low achieving students. They found that the cooperative learning group scored significantly higher on a world geography test. Perrault (1982/1983) found that cooperative learning helped the industrial arts students to gain significantly higher achievement at the knowledge and comprehension levels of Bloom's taxonomy. In a review of 46 studies related to cooperative learning, Slavin (1983) found that cooperative learning resulted in significant positive effects in 63% of the studies, and only two studies reported higher achievement for the other comparison group. Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, and Skon (1981) conducted a meta-analysis of 122 studies related to cooperative learning and concluded that there was strong evidence for the superiority of cooperative learning in promoting achievement and improving performance over the other traditional strategies. So assuming that cooperative learning helps enhance EFL learners performance, the purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of cooperative learning on EFL learners performance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The researcher applied cooperative learning techniques in the experimental classroom. The teaching materials that the students studied were mainly from the government regular English curriculum for both the experimental class and the control class. The intervention in the experimental class includes two major phases. During the first phase, time and effort are spent on getting the students familiarized with the cooperative learning structures. The role of the teacher during the first phase of implementing cooperative learning is to turn the traditional classroom into a cooperative learning context. One of the major turning points from traditional classroom to a cooperative learning one is the careful design of the learning climate. First of all, the researcher (the teacher) sets the climate for cooperative learning by dividing the students into three heterogeneous groups based on the English grades from the previous semester. The principle of heterogeneous grouping in this study is to ensure that each group is composed of students with different academic achievements. The seating arrangement is also changed in the classroom. Instead of sitting in rows facing each other s back, the students sit face-to-face with their group members. After the formation of six heterogeneous groups and the process of teambuilding, each member in the group was given a particular role to play. Role assignment for each group member in cooperative learning context is another major feature that

4 distinguishes cooperative learning from regular group learning. The job description of each role was explained clearly and explicitly to the students. Adapted from Kagan (1989), the responsibility of each role is explained in detail in this table. Role Assignments and Job Description Role Leader Reporter Checker Job Description The leader is the chairperson who hosts the group discussion and makes sure that each member is on task by participating in the discussion or any given task. The reporter is responsible for reporting the summary of his group s discussion to the class on behalf of his team. The checker makes sure that each one in the group finishes the worksheet or assigned task in class. If someone in the group has a problem in completing the individual worksheet, the checker reports to the leader who decides what kind of help will be given to that member. Each student has to rotate the roles every two weeks. The rotation is to ensure that each student has equal chance to experience all the roles and to share different kinds of responsibility. The two classes received the same instructional material, taught by the same teacher (the researcher), who used the same course content and got back the same number of class assignments. The experimental group was taught using cooperative learning strategies discussed above. The control group was taught through the traditional competitive strategies. As a way to enhance the interdependence and individual accountability of all the students, the Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) is introduced to measure students academic achievement. The participants are given a weekly quiz by way of STAD, which is a method to account for individual and group achievement at the same time. Therefore, they have to study hard for themselves as well as for their group members. The teaching procedures and activities in the control class belong to the traditional method, which involve mainly the Grammar Translation and some of the Audiolingual method. The integration of these two methods, according to the writer s point of view, is the most popular teaching methods used in EFL classes in Saudi Arabia. Data Analysis The study yielded statistical significant differences between the control and the experimental groups. Comparison between two groups in the pre-test This table shows the result of independent T-test to Comparison between two groups in the pre-test.

5 Group No Mean Std. Deviation T-value Df Sig Interpretation Result Experimental Control Non- Significance There is no difference between the two groups The above table shows that there is no significant difference between the control and the experimental groups in the pre-test because probability value is more than 0.05.This shows that both the experimental and the control groups had almost equal English base knowledge before the applying cooperative learning. These diagrams also show that both the experimental and the control groups had almost equal English base knowledge before the applying cooperative learning.

6 Comparison between two groups in the post-test This table shows the result of independent T-test to Comparison between two groups in the post-test. Group No Mean Std. Deviation T-value df Sig Interpretation Result Experimental Control Significance There is difference for experimental groups The above table shows that there is a significant difference between the post-test mean score of the control and the experimental groups. The experimental group performed significantly better than control group. This indicates that cooperative learning is more effective than regular traditional methods in improving the EFL learners performance. The diagrams below also show the result of independent T-test to Comparison between two groups in the post-test and show that there is a significant difference between the post-test mean score of the control and the experimental groups.

7 DISCUSSION From the researcher's observation inside the classroom, the use of cooperative learning had positively affected the performance of the EFL learners inside the classroom. The study The impact of using cooperative learning on EFL learners performance in Secondary Schools has shown that Cooperative learning strategy is more effective than other non-cooperative learning strategies in teaching EFL learners because of the following reasons: 1. Students like cooperative learning because it is student-centered. 2. In the cooperative learning classroom, they learn actively by exploring knowledge. 3. They do not depend on their teachers to learn but they depend on their classmates. 4. They are engaged in the learning process instead of listening passively to the teacher. 5. Cooperative learning is more interesting because teachers inspire students instead of teaching them. 6. The students are more enthusiastic because they treat the learning tasks as games. 7. Cooperative learning is not boring because students are motivated to learn. 8. In the cooperative learning classroom, students do not give up learning so easily and they can get support from their group members. 9. In the cooperative learning classroom students talk freely to their classmates in the classroom so they feel very happy. 10. They like their schools more. 11. They like their teachers more. 12. They like their classmates more. 13. After thorough discussion, they cultivate more interest in the subject and show better performance. 14. They share their success with their groups mate, thus enhancing the groups' mate self- esteem. 15. They think cooperative learning is democratic because they are allowed to assess themselves, their groups and class procedures. 16. They have challenging and thoughtful learning experiences. 17. As they attempt to solve problems or answer questions, they involve in the process of exploratory learning.

8 18. They have ample chances to practice higher-order thinking skills such as analysis and evaluation. 19. They are trained to have better interpersonal skills such as communication, trust, leadership, decision making and conflict resolution. 20. They cultivate the habit of sharing resource materials with their members so they are not selfish. 21. They have different roles assigned by the teacher such as researcher, organizer, encourager, recorder, timekeeper, observer, facilitator, checker and reporter. They rotate their roles each time they work together and they learn quite a lot from different roles. 22. They develop skills in oral communication as they have to speak quite often during the lesson. 23. They develop their social skills and know how to respect others. 24. They can learn faster and more efficiently with the help of their classmates. 25. Group members stimulate the learning of others by asking them challenging questions. 26. In the cooperative learning classroom, they have ample opportunities to learn how to criticize ideas. 27. In the cooperative learning classroom, they challenge ideas of their group members and advocate their own ideas. They learn better debating skills. 28. They contribute to discussions and share their thoughts and reasoning. They are happy because their ideas are considered. 29. They learn how to compromise with their group members when they have different opinions so that they have agreement before they draw conclusions. 30. They develop problem-solving skills. RESULTS The most important findings are: 1. There is a significant statistical difference between the performance of the subjects (samples) who were taught through cooperative learning method and those who were taught through traditional methods. 2. The use of cooperative learning method has positive effects on EFL learners performance. 3. Cooperative learning approach is more effective than the other non-cooperative learning approaches.

9 4. Cooperative learning improves students participation, especially among those students who typically resist participation 5. Cooperative learning is an easy and useful teaching model for EFL teachers. 6. Cooperative learning is a good option for all students because it demonstrates more positive student outcomes in academic achievement. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I am thankful Jazan University for giving the chance to conduct this research and grateful to Sulayel Secondary School Administration for their great help and co-operation. REFERENCES Cohen, E. (1994 ). Designing Group Work : Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom. 2nd ed. New York : Teachers College Press David and Roger Johnson. "An Overview of Cooperative Learning." [Online] < Howard Community College's Teaching Resources. "Ideas on Cooperative Learning and the use of Small Groups." [Online] < Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Stanne, M. B. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A meta-analysis, from Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Holubec, E. (1991). Cooperation in the classroom. Edina, MN: Interaction. Kagan, S. (1995). We can talk Cooperative learning in the elementary ESL classroom. Washington, DC. Kagan, Spencer. "Kagan Structures for Emotional Intelligence." [Online]. " Kessler, C. (Ed.). (1992). Cooperative language learning: A teacher s resource book. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents. Sharan, Y., & Sharan, S. (1992). Expanding cooperative learning through group investigation. New York: Teachers College Press. Slavin, R. E. (1995). Cooperative learning theory. Needham Heights, MS: Allyn & Bacon.

10 Susan Grider Montgomery, HEALTH COMES FIRST!!!, USA