Effects Of The Learning Together Model Education Essay

Effects Of The Learning Together Model Education Essay CHAPTER 1 1.1 Introduction Cooperative language learning has been proclaimed as an effective instructional approach in promoting the cognitive and linguistic development of learners of English as a Second Language (ESL) or English as a Foreign Language (EFL) (Kagan, 1995; Kessler, 1992; McGroarty, 1989, 1993). These researchers, among others, have established the theoretical relevance of cooperative learning (CL) in second language (L2) instruction based on the premise that CL provides maximum opportunities for meaningful input and output in a highly interactive and supportive environment. CL also integrates language and content learning, and its varied applications are in harmony with the pedagogical implications of the input, socialization, and interactive theories of L2 acquisition. This is because CL enhances the motivation and psychosocial adjustment of L2 learners (Cohen, 1994; Dornyei, 1994, 1997). According to Olsen and Kagan (1992), CL increases interaction among learners as they restate, expand, and elaborate their ideas in order to convey and/or clarify intended meaning. This interaction is important because it contributes to gains in L2 acquisition (Long Porter, 1985; Pica, Young, Doughty, 1987) and in academic achievement (Bejarano, 1987; Ghaith Yaghi, 1998; Kagan, 1989). Furthermore, it has been established that CL enables learners to process information beyond the level of receptive understanding by offering redundancy and multiple venues of information access and tasks (Olsen Kagan, 1992; Webb, 1989). Likewise, CL may be especially useful for ESL/EFL learners based on the assumption that it provides a variety of flexible ways for organizing instruction and integrating language and content learning into various discourse and instructional contexts (Olsen, 1989). In addition, CL encourages active participation in genuine conversations and collaborative problem-solving activities in a class climate of personal and academic support. It also empowers learners and provides them with autonomy and control to organize and regulate their own learning (Clifford, 1999; Thomson, 1998) As Cooperative Learning advances into the nations classrooms, the benefits of reading strategies increase greatly. Reading strategies suggested in Diversified Teaching, though strong in themselves, gain more power as we put the steps into the hands of students. For many learners, active participation is the key to mastery. In the past, teachers have done most of the action with students passively observing. Now, after carefully modeling the steps of a strategy, teachers can direct the activities to small groups of students. When students become actively involved in the learning process, the following occur: 1. Motivation increases/boredom decreases 2. Mastery improves for kinesthetic learners 3. Responsibility of learning shifts to the students 1.2 Background of the Research Problem The social and school context of the present study is a bilingual environment where Bahasa Malaysia, the native language, is predominately used in the media and for daily communication and English is taught as second language, valued for their educational and cultural significance. However, ESL instruction in the context of the present study remains competitive in nature and does not provide opportunities for active learning and meaningful communication among learners because learners are expected to perform better than their classmates in order to attain higher grades and achieves the approval and success. There is a need to examine the theoretical relevance and efficacy of cooperative learning as an instructional approach in a bilingual and traditional school context such as this one based on the assumption that it would promote active learning and meaningful interaction in the target language of English among learners. 1.3 Statement of the Problem It has been said that students learn to read by reading and to write by writing. If, in fact, this is true, it is reasonable to assume that students develop feelings of worth by experiencing small daily successes. Success in school, particularly in reading, has a strong impact on students feelings of worth and accomplishment. True reading requires both the ability to break down the code and the ability to understand the meaning intended by the writer. Collaboration is required between left and right brain visual skills in order to be a strong reader. Fortunately, students who are weak in either area can be assisted by using specific strategies Cooperative learning is a philosophical shift from the teacher as primary conveyor of information to teacher as facilitator. Student works together in groups of two to five as they teach one another, problem solve and develop appropriate social skills. Cooperative learning provides a way for students who are weak in academic skills to actively participate in the learning opportunity by contributing their own strengths and by receiving peer assistance. However, research indicates that the strong student who helps the weak one actually benefits more. 1.4 Conceptual Framework This research is to determine the effects of the Learning Together Model of Cooperative Learning on English as a Second Language in Reading Comprehension Achievement and Academic Self-Esteem to improve students scores on reading comprehension tests within a particular primary school setting.  The experimental group of students from the upper primary level is the sample for comparison in the form of quantitative and qualitative instruments. Before and after achievements will be taken into consideration for analysis. During the pre test a specifically design test will be given for the purpose of the present study is administered to all participants 1 week prior to the treatment. This test is based on a reading text and included 12 items that measured participants literal comprehension of ideas directly stated in the passage and higher order comprehension that required inference and interpretation. Finally, the same post test is administered to the participants in the control and experimental groups at the conclusion of the treatment. This test is a domain-referenced test that covered the learning outcomes and competencies targeted during the period of investigation. The post test is based on a selection reading text that is previously read by the participants and included nine multiple-choice, three short answers, and eight sentence-completion items that measured the outcomes and competencies under investigation. Outcomes of the tests, the questionnaires, the feedback on the techniques and observation of the self-esteem of the sample will be taken into consideration for further evaluation. The conceptual framework of this research as below: Figure 1: Conceptual Framework of Research PRETEST CLASS B CLASS A EKSPERIMENTAL GROUP CONTROL GROUP POST- TEST Questionnaires (Self-Esteem) STUDENT STUDENT F M F M RESULT Murid) 1.5 Purpose of the Research The purpose of this research is to determine the effects of the Learning Together Model of Cooperative Learning on English as a Second Language in Reading Comprehension Achievement and Academic Self-Esteem to improve students scores on reading comprehension tests within a particular primary school setting.   ESL learners found reading for information easy in their first language but more difficult in a second or foreign language. Reading comprehension tests caused anxiety and a sense of failure for students who did not have the skills to cope with the tests. Reading in a second language was not easy but taking tests made it even more difficult. 1.5.1 Research Objectives This research intends to find the following objectives: To examine whether the Learning Together CL model more effective than conventional class instruction in promoting the ESL reading comprehension achievement. To examine whether the Learning Together CL model more effective than conventional class in promoting achievement within male and female students. To examine whether the Learning Together CL model more effective than conventional in increasing the interest for the experimental group. To examine whether Conventional Method can increase the students interest among the control group students. 1.5.2 Research Questions Specifically, the study addressed the following questions: a) Is the Learning Together CL model more effective than conventional instruction in promoting the ESL reading achievement? b) Is the Learning Together CL model more effective than conventional in promoting achievement within male and female students? c) Is the Learning Together CL model more effective in increase the interest for the students in experimental group? d) Is Conventional Method can increase the students interest among the control group student? 1.5.3 Hypothesis Null a) There is no significant difference in achievement mean score on post test of students in experimental group compare to students in control group. b) There is no significant difference of achievement score in English Lesson within male and female students who had been taught using Learning Together Model. c) There is no significant difference in interest for the students in experimental group using the Learning Together Model. d) There is no significant mean score in English Reading Comprehension Test in Interest for the Control Group Students Using Conventional Method. 1.6 Significance of the Research Its clear that reading comprehension is a complex cognitive process that depends upon a number of ingredients all working together in a synchronous, even automatic way. Vocabulary clearly plays a critical role in understanding what has been read. The reader must also be intentional and thoughtful while reading, monitoring the words and their meaning as reading progresses. And the reader must apply reading comprehension strategies as ways to be sure that what is being read matches their expectations and builds on their growing body of knowledge that is being stored for immediate or future reference. . In conventional classrooms, ESL students receive less teacher and peer communication and communication at a lower linguistic and cognitive level than in cooperative learning classrooms. One of the main advantages of group work for second language learners is that it offers students the chance to hear more language and more complex language during interaction. In discussion with others, students may hear more complex language from their peers than from the teacher in conventional class discussion. Consequently, at least some of the input will be at an appropriate level. In one study, students participating in group-based investigation made more high-level cognitive gains than those who took part in peer-tutoring or whole-class methods (Holt, 1993). Most observational research indicates that the speaker is the teacher 60 to 70 % of the time during teacher-centered interaction. In comparison, in cooperative learning, one fourth to one half of the students can speak at any given time, depending on whether pair work or group work is being used (McGroarty, 1993). This is important to language learning because it give students more opportunities to practice using language skills. In addition to increasing the number of opportunities available for verbal expression, cooperative learning methods promote use of a wide range of communicative functions. This is important to language learning to expose students to a variety of language skills. Through teacher modeling and pre teaching exercises, students are given specific instructions in such skills as paraphrasing the ideas of others, asking for explanations, summarizing, clarifying, indicating agreement or disagreement, and interrupting politely, all verbal skills, which are beneficial to the language acquisition process. 1.7 Limitations of the Research Some problems which may arose when research is conducted. They are: The outcomes may only cover the sample and may not necessarily be concluded all the groups in the general. However, samples with similarities of culture, background and also environmental factors may result in similarities of outcomes and problems. Differences in approaches and styles of the teachers, the interest of the students, the studying environment and other factors also need to be addressed in order to have more valid and reliable results. Reading techniques are focused on the reading comprehension and could not be generalized for other aspects of the language. 1.8 Definition of Terms Definition of Reading True reading requires both the ability to break down the code and the ability to understand the meaning intended by the writer. Collaboration is required between left and right brain visual skills in order to be a strong reader. Fortunately, students who are weak in either area can be assisted by using specific strategies. Reading Comprehension   Ã‚   Its clear that reading comprehension is a complex cognitive process that depends upon a number of ingredients all working together in a synchronous, even automatic way. Vocabulary clearly plays a critical role in understanding what has been read. The reader must also be intentional and thoughtful while reading, monitoring the words and their meaning as reading progresses. And the reader must apply reading comprehension strategies as ways to be sure that what is being read matches their expectations and builds on their growing body of knowledge that is being stored for immediate or future reference. Definition of Cooperative Learning Cooperative learning is a philosophical shift from the teacher as primary conveyor of information to teacher as facilitator. Student works together in groups of two to five as they teach one another, problem solve and develop appropriate social skills. Cooperative learning provides a way for students who are weak in academic skills to actively participate in the learning opportunity by contributing their own strengths and by receiving peer assistance. However, research indicates that the strong student who helps the weak one actually benefits more. 1.9 Summary The research is an attempt to investigate the effects of the Learning Together Model of Cooperative Learning on English as a Second Language in Reading Comprehension Achievement and Academic Self-Esteem. Reading comprehension is a complex cognitive process that depends upon a number of ingredients all working together in a synchronous, even automatic way. Vocabulary clearly plays a critical role in understanding what has been read. The reader must also be intentional and thoughtful while reading, monitoring the words and their meaning as reading progresses. Cooperative Learning advances into the nations classrooms, the benefits of reading strategies increase greatly. Reading strategies suggested in Diversified Teaching, though strong in themselves, gain more power as we put the steps into the hands of students. Effects of the Learning Together Model of Cooperative Learning on English as a Second Language in Reading Comprehension Achievement and Academic Self-Esteem CHAPTER 2 Literature Review: 2.1 Introduction : Cooperative Learning(CL) Currently, CL is perceived as a generic term for a number of instructional techniques and procedures that address conceptual learning and social development. It encompasses the following instructional models: the Structural Approach (Kagan, 1989), Group Investigation (Sharan Sharan, 1992), Student Team Learning (Aronson, Blaney, Stephan, Sikes, Snapp, 1978; Slavin, 1995), Curriculum Packages (Slavin, Leavey, Madden, 1986), and Learning Together (Johnson, Johnson, Holubec, 1991, 1992, 1994). The Structural Approach is based on using content-free ways of managing classroom interaction called structures. Structures are relatively easy to implement and can be categorized into team and class building, communication, mastery, and critical thinking structures. One example of a structure is Numbered Heads Together. Kagan (1989) describes the procedure of Numbered Heads Together as follows: Step 1: Students number off within teams. Step 2: The teacher asks a high consensus question. Step 3: Students put their heads together to make sure everyone on the team knows the answer. Step 4: The teacher calls a number at random, and students with that number raise their hands to be called upon to answer the question and earn points for their teams. Group Investigation divides work among team members, who complete specific tasks and then reconvene to prepare a group presentation. Student Team Learning includes the Jigsaw method and its variations and the Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD) method. The Jigsaw method has five major components: reading, expert group discussion, team report, testing, and team recognition. Meanwhile, STAD is organized around the components of teacher presentation, team study, individual quizzes, individual improvement scoring, and team recognition. The main difference between Jigsaw and STAD is that Jigsaw is well suited for teaching material in a narrative form such as a story or chapter, whereas STAD is useful in teaching materials that require single correct answers such as language rules and mechanics. Curriculum Packages are specific programs for teaching math and language and include the Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition program. The Learning Together model organizes instruction according to the principles of positive interdependence, individual accountability, promotive face-to-face interaction, social and collaborative skills, and group processing. Specifically, positive interdependence means that the success of students is linked with the success of their team members and may be structured through mutual goals, joint rewards, shared resources, complementary roles, and a common team identity. Individual accountability means that the performance of each member is assessed and results are given to the team and the individual so that team members cannot get a free ride on the efforts of their teammates. Yet, team members still help, share, encourage, and support each others efforts to succeed through promotive interaction within their groups. Furthermore, they use and develop their interpersonal and small-group skills of leadership, decision making, trust building, and conflict management. Finally, the team members perform group processing to reflect how well the team is functioning and how its effectiveness may be improved. As such, the main difference between the Learning Together and other CL models is that this model is less discrete and less prescriptive than the Structural and the Student Team Learning models that employ specific steps in lesson planning and some what prepackaged curricula, lessons, and strategies in a prescribed manner (Johnson Johnson, 1998, p. 226). Rather, the Learning Together model provides a conceptual framework for teachers to plan and tailor cooperative learning instruction according to their circumstances, student needs, and school contexts. (For fu rther description of the various CL models, see Kluge, McGuire, Johnson, Johnson, 1999.) 2.2 Review of Previous Studies Previous research involving students who spoke English as a first language and who learned content in English has suggested that CL may encourage higher self-esteem and lower feelings of alienation at school (Johnson, 1979). For instance, Norem-Hebeisen and Johnson (1981) reported that self-esteem was positively related with cooperative relationships among 821 White, middle-class secondary school students in a mid western suburban American community. These researchers further reported that competitive and individualistic patterns of social interdependence reflected lower self-esteem and greater concerns regarding success and social approval. However, Johnson, Johnson, Scott, and Ramolae (1985) found no significant differences between the Learning Together CL model and individualistic and competitive forms of instruction in improving the self-esteem of 154 fifth- and sixth-grade students of science in suburban Minnesota. Along similar lines, Oickle (1980) studied the effects of team reward and individual reward structures on the English achievement and self-esteem of 1,031 students from diverse communities enrolled in four American middle schools. This researcher reported positive effects in favor of the team reward structure in promoting achievement in the four schools and in improving self-esteem in only one of the schools. Similarly, Madden and Slavin (1983), who studied the development of self-esteem among regular and special needs elementary school children in Baltimore, Maryland, reported greater general self-esteem effects for STAD but no differences in academic and social self-esteem between STAD and the control group. Conversely, Allen and Van Sickle (1984) reported no differences between STAD and the control group in improving the general self-esteem of 51 ninth-grade students after 6 weeks of experimentation in rural Georgia. Finally, while some researchers found that the Jigsaw method had positive effects in improving students general self-esteem (e.g., Blaney, Stephan, Rosenfield, Aronson, Sikes, 1977), Gonzales (1979) reported no such effects. In the context of ESL/EFL, previous research suggests that CL promotes positive attitudes among learners (Gunderson Johnson, 1980), intrinsic motivation and satisfaction (Clement, Dornyei, Noels, 1994; Szostek, 1994; Ushioda, 1996), and active pursuit of group goals (Nichols Miller, 1994). It also leads to gains in social support for academic excellence (Daniels, 1994), expectancy of successful task fulfillment (Douglas, 1983), and increased self-confidence and less anxiety (Deci Ryan, 1985). More recently, Ghaith and Yaghi (1998) reported that the STAD method is more effective than individualistic instruction in improving the acquisition of L2 rules and mechanics. Likewise, Calderon, Hertz-Lazarowitz, and Slavin (1998) reported that a bilingual Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition intervention improved third-grade achievement during transition from Spanish to English in comparison with control classes that used traditional textbook reading methods. Similarly, Bejarano, Levine, Olshtain, and Steiner (1997) reported that small-group cooperative practice of modified interaction and social interaction strategies improve EFL learners communicative competence. In like manner, Thomson (1998), in her study of a group of third-year Australian university students in a Japanese language class, found that cooperation among teachers and students increased interaction opportunities among learners and promoted autonomous learning. Finally, Ghaith (2002) reported that the Learning Together CL model positively correlates with a supportive L2 climate and with learners perceptions of fairness of grading and academic achievement. The aforementioned studies underscore the value and potential of CL in the L2 classroom. However, there is still a need to investigate the efficacy of various CL models in promoting gains in the cognitive and non-cognitive domains of ESL/EFL instruction across different languages and cultures. 2.3 Summary Consequently, the present study set out to investigate the effects of the Learning Together CL model on the achievement, academic self-esteem, and feelings of alienation among ESL learners studying in a situation characterized by competitive schooling and limited opportunities for meaningful social interaction in English, the target language. Effects of the Learning Together Model of Cooperative Learning on English as a Second Language in Reading Comprehension Achievement and Academic Self-Esteem CHAPTER 3 Research Methodology 3.1 Study Design The study employed a pre test-post test control group design and focused on the variables of academic self-esteem and alienation from school as well as achievement based on the proposition that interacting positively with other people to achieve common goals tends to increase academic self-esteem and to decrease school alienation (Johnson, Johnson, Stanne, 2000). Academic self-esteem and psychosocial adjustment at school are of critical importance because they enable learners to withstand the disappointments of life, be confident decision makers, and ultimately be happy and productive individuals (Slavin, 1995). Likewise, the Learning Together CL model was selected as the form of intervention in the present study because it encompasses all the CL elements of heterogeneous grouping, positive interdependence, individual accountability, social and collaborative skills, and group processing. Furthermore, there is at present a need to examine the efficacy of this model in The context of teaching ESL in general, and in the context of the present study in particular, due to the scarcity of previous research. 3.2 Populations and Sample Participants in the study are 60 upper primary students from a primary school in Kulim. The learners are from families with low to medium socioeconomic and educational backgrounds enrolled in the primary school in Kulim. There are 34 males and 26 females, and their ages ranged from 11 to 12 years. The participants will be selected from the primary school and will be randomly assigned to control and experimental groups; the study will last for 10 weeks. The experimental group included 30 participants who will study together in seven teams of four members each according to the dynamics of the Learning Together CL model as described in the Study section. Meanwhile, the 30 participants in the control group will study the same material according to procedures in their textbooks. FIGURE 2: Populations and Sample Male Female Experimental Group 16 14 Control Group 18 12 3.3 Research Instruments Academic self-esteem was defined in the context of the present study as the self perception of one as being a capable, competent, and successful student (Johnson Johnson, 1996, p. 67) and measured by a five-item Likert subscale adapted from Johnson and Johnson (1996). Likewise, an eleven-item Likert subscale also adapted from measured school alienation Johnson and Johnson (1996) In addition, an achievement pre test specifically designed for the purpose of the present study is administered to all participants 1 week prior to the treatment. This test is based on a reading text and included 12 items that measured participants literal comprehension of ideas directly stated in the passage and higher order comprehension that required inference and interpretation. Finally, the same post test is administered to the participants in the control and experimental groups at the conclusion of the treatment. This test is a domain-referenced test that covered the learning outcomes and competencies targeted during the period of investigation. These outcomes and competencies included utilizing context Clues (syntactic and semantic) and using reading strategies such as previewing, skimming, and scanning to achieve literal and higher order comprehension of printed discourse. The post test is based on a selection reading text that is previously read by the participants and included nine multiple-choice, three short-answers, and eight sentence-completion items that measured the outcomes and competencies under investigation. The content validity of the test was established by the researcher, the program coordinator, and the teacher who implemented the study, using a specification table as suggested by Sax (1980). Consequently, it is determined that four items measured literal comprehension, eleven items measured higher order skills, and five items measured the use of context clues to aid comprehension. 3.4 Procedure for Data Collection The study consisted of two phases. The first phase involve a teacher who agreed to participate in the study by applying the elements of the Learning Together CL model (heterogeneous grouping, positive interdependence, individual accountability, social skills, group processing) in her teaching of ESL. This phase focused on specifying academic and collaborative skills objectives, dividing students into groups, arranging the room, assigning roles, and planning materials. Furthermore, the participating teacher will receive training in explaining academic tasks, structuring positive goal interdependence, individual accountability, and intergroup cooperation. The teacher will also learn how to specify and monitor learners desired behaviors and enable students to process and evaluate how the group functioned. The purpose of this first phase was to maximize experiment fidelity through careful training of the teacher-experimenter who would implement the second phase of the study. The second phase of implementation involved working with the program coordinator and the teacher who agreed to participate in the study in order to determine the content and learning outcomes and competencies to be achieved during the period of investigation. In addition, detailed lesson plans were designed in order to teach the same content and skills to the experimental and control groups. The lesson plans for the experimental group were based on a checklist of teachers roles and lesson templates designed by Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec (1987) . Specifically, the plans included lesson summaries, instructional objectives, and a list of materials needed as well as specifications of time required, group size, assignment to groups and roles, and arranging the room. The lesson plans also included an explanation of tasks, procedures to structure positive interdependence and individual accountability, and criteria for success. In addition, the plans specified the social skills and expected behaviors, and included procedures for group monitoring and processing to see how well the group functions. Meanwhile, the lesson plans for the control group focused on reading the same material according to the instructional procedures (activities) suggested in their textbook. These procedures were organized into three stages of lesson planning: opening, instruction and participation, and closure. These stages provided opportunities for working on various language objectives in the written and oral domains in an integrated matter, using a wide variety of instructional techniques such as whole-class brainstorming, discussion, question and answer, comprehension checks, crossword puzzles, and graphic organizers. Both the experimental and control group lesson plans addressed the same instructional objectives and will be based on the same reading selections and exercises. However, the experimental plans provided opportunities for small-group interaction and for sharing resources among team members. There was also an emphasis on social and collaborative skills and on developing team spirit and collegiality. Conversely, students in the control group worked individually and shared their answers with the class. As previously noted, one of the teachers who had received training in Phase 1 of the study had agreed to participate in Phase 2. In order to avoid any potential bias in the implementa