000099114 IMPROVING LEARNING READING FOR THE FIRST-YEAR NON ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS THROUGH COOPERATIVE LEARNING: AN ACTION RESEARCH PRJOJECT AT LANG SON COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (Cải thiện việc học đọc cho sinh viên năm nhất không chuyên ngành tiếng Anh thông

000099114 IMPROVING LEARNING READING FOR THE FIRST-YEAR NON ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS THROUGH COOPERATIVE LEARNING: AN ACTION RESEARCH PRJOJECT AT LANG SON COLLEGE OF EDUCATION (Cải thiện việc học đọc cho sinh viên năm nhất không chuyên ngành tiếng Anh thông qua học tập hợp tác: Một dự án nghiên cứu hành động tại trường Cao đẳng Sư phạm Lạng Sơn).

M I N I S T R Y O F E D U C A T I O N A N D T R A I N I N G

HANOI UNIVERSITY

VU THI HANG NGA

IM PROVING LEARNING READING FOR THE FIRST-YEAR NON ENGLISH MAJOR STUDENTS

THROUGH CO O PERATIVE LEARNING :

AN ACTION RESEARCH PRJOJECT

AT LANG SON CO LLEG E OF EDUCATION

S U B M IT T E D IN P A R T IA L F U L F IL L M E N T O F R E Q U IR E M E N T S

F O R T H E D E G R E E O F M A S T E R O F A R T S IN T E S O L

SU PERV ISO R: LUU THI PHUONG LAN, Ph.D

STATEM EN T OF AUTHORSHIP

I certify that the thesis entitled — Im proving learning read in g for the first-y ear non-E nglish m ajor students through cooperative learning: A n action research p ro ject at Lang Son C ollege o f Educationl and subm itted in partial fulfillm en t o f the requirem ents for the degree o f M aster o f

A rts in T E SO L is the result o f m y w ork, an d that this th esis o r an y part o f th e sam e has not been subm itted for a higher degree to any o th er universities o r institutions

The research reported in this thesis w as approved by H anoi U niversity

Signature:

Vu Thj H ang N ga

Forem ost, I w ish to express my sincere gratitude to m y supervisor Dr Luu Thi Phucmg Lan, for providing me w ith all her valuable advice, instructions and correction, especially her continuous cncouragcm cnt and support during the research conduction W ithout her precious guidance, my thesis w ould not have been accom plished

1 am also grateful to A ssociate Professor Dr N guyen Van T rao, V ice President o f Hanoi

U niversity, Dean o f Post-G raduate Studies D epartm ent, and sta ff m em bers o f Post-G raduate

D epartm ent, Hanoi U niversity for their help and support I am extrem ely thankful and indebted

to them for their useful lectures, and valuable guidance and encouragem ent to me

I take this opportunity to express m y thanks to all o f m y colleagues at Lang Son C ollege o f Education for their assistance and support during the process o f data collection for m y study.Last but not least, I w ould like to thank m y fam ily m em bers for their love, care and spiritual

s u p p o r t to m e th r o u g h o u t th e r c s c a r c h

LISTS OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 3 1 The cycle o f action research (Ferrance, 2 0 0 0 ) 25

Figure 4 1 Student’s self-assessnient o f their English ability (initial s ta g e ) 36

Figure 4 2 The pre-intervention proficiency t e s t 38

Figure 4 3 Student’s self-assessm ent o f their English capacity in the initial and action stages 39

Figure 4 4 A com parison o f the pre-test and post-test resu lts 40

Figure 4 5 S tudent's attitudes tow ard learning re a d in g 43

Figure 4 6 Student’s attitudes tow ard the C L activ ities 44

Table 2 1 D ifferences betw een cooperative learning and traditional le a rn in g 11

Table 3 1 Intervention plan in the c la s s 31

Table 3 2 The design for the study 32

Table 4 1 Student’s previous English learning e x p e rie n c e s 35

Table 4 2 Ranges o f stu d en t's perform ance (initial s ta g e ) 38

Table 4 3 D escriptive statistics o f the pre-test and p o s t-te s t 40

Table 4 4 Results o f pre-test and p o st-te st 41

Table 4 5 Student’s preference for cooperation with c lassm ates 44

Table 4 6 S tu d en t's view s on cooperative le arn in g 46

C H A P T E R I: INTRODUCTION

1 1 B a ck g ro u n d o f th e stu d y

The English language, being an im portant m edium o f com m unication at both intra-nationaland international levels, is used as a second or foreign language in m any countries In Vietnam, English is one important subject from kindergarten to university levels The objectives o f English syllabuses are to enable the students to improve their ability in four language skills, which are: listening, speaking, reading and writing Reading, which challenging for learners because they are required to cope with new vocabulary, inform ation, culture and language structures written in the target language Thus, the im provem ent o f reading skills needs to be supported in as many

w ays as possible

The traditional state o f the nature o f classroom instruction in Lang Son Teacher Training

C ollege o f Education (CO E) depends heavily on teacher’s instruction and m emorization In the classroom , reading is usually done intensively for the purpose o f general and specific inform ation The teacher delivers the lessons and students do not participate in discovering and exploring inform ation, they receive passively as a truth and they have a hard tim e eliciting the inferred m eaning from the text It is said that m ost o f teachers do not allow student to help them

to transfer the content o f lessons because they believe that dem onstrating and teaching m aterials

is the teach er’s job Failure to retrieve m eaning m akes students disconcerted This limits the student’s participation, m otivation and enthusiasm w ith the w ay o f conventional m ethod in learning process As a consequence, the student’s poor perform ance is reflected in the class activities and test scores This is very true in our teaching at Lang Son C O E where English is not

a major

From the above consideration, the researcher has tried to find a solution to this problem In the heyday o f C om m unicative Language Teaching, there are many opinions from educationalists’ shifting from “teacher centeredness” to “ learner centeredness” (Richards & Rodgers, 2001) The desired goal o f com m unicative language teaching is assisting learners in acquiring the ability to use the linguistic system o f the target language effectively Nunan (1992)

m anifests students are capable o f im proving their language skills while interacting with other learners in learner-centered language classrooms

1.2.R ation al of the sfudv

C ooperative learning (CL) is an approach currently applied in most language classes, especially w idely used in school content areas and increasingly in college and university contexts all o ver the world for die purpose o f creating a m ore learner-centered atm osphere in which stu d en ts’ learning pace is supported by the students them selves (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Kessler, 1992) N ot only cooperative learning em phasizes active interaction between students o f diverse abilities and backgrounds (N elson, G allagher, & C olem an, 1993; Tsai, 1998; Wei, 1997;

Yu, 1995) but also dem onstrates more positive student outcom es in academic achievem ent, social behavior, and affective developm ent, it is generally affirm ed as the best choice for all students

Reading is necessary when learners further their study acquiring new vocabulary mastery, inform ation, culture and language structures written in the target language This is actually the concern o f both EFL learners and instructors M any researchers have been interested in investigating strategies that help students have b etter understanding when they read (Bejarano,

1987; Faram arzy, 2003; G haith, 2003; H ollingsw orth et al, 2007) However, although m ost

research findings point to the positive influence o f cooperative learning on academic achievem ents, social behavior, and affective developm ent, m any English teachers in Lang Son still find difficulty in incorporating this system o f instructional m ethod in their classroom

M oreover, little attention has been taken into consideration to investigate the outcom es o f cooperative learning on the learners’ reading com petence and m otivation tow ard learning English Therefore, this study exam ines the effects o f the use o f cooperative learning activities

on attitudes o f learners w ho are not used to this approach in reading classes

From four m onths internship as a teacher and as an observer at Lang Son College o f Education (C O E), the researcher realized diat m ost o f the English teachers there are used to delivering the m aterials in the traditional method The teacher starts the lesson by presenting new inform ation and students ju st listen and take notes The teacher m ay ask some questions to clarify unclear points These questions are often directed to volunteer students who engage actively in the lesson and can give the right answ ers O ther students have a little chance to raise their voice and they often tend to becom e overly passive They are afraid o f being recognized as the one who do not know anything The solution they choose to conceal by sitting in silence Then, the teacher continues asking students to do the exercises to reinforce the knowledge that

they have learnt One or som e students w ould be called at a tim e to stand up and read out his or her answ er or go to the front and w rite their answ ers on the chalkboard The teachers check their answ ers and ask the student explains w hy she or he answ ers the w ay she or he did Due to the lim it o f tim e (45 m inutes/period) and th e large size o f the students, the teacher tends to pick random ly some students or divide into groups o f tw o for discussion to find the answ ers B esides, stu d en ts’ learning m otivation is low because m ost students prefer to d o private jo b such as chatting, learning another subject rather than to focus on discussion This leads to lack o f participation from students in w hich students disengage and provide very little peer feedback They find it boring as they can find the key easily behind the course book C onsequently, depending on keys directly w orsen stu d ent’s perform ance in reading com prehension and problem solving They can give the correct an sw er but unable to explain w hy th ey choose it The traditional w hole-class lecturing m ethod is found to be one o f the m ajor causes o f the generally low English proficiency and the declining interest o f English learning am ong students in Lang Son COE.

1 3 S tu d y o b je c tiv e s a n d r e s e a r c h q u e s tio n s

The situation provides another good reason fo r an action research project to be conducted to investigate the extent to w hich the use o f cooperative learning o f the l sl year English-non m ajor students in the Lang Son C O E w ould help th eir reading perform ance as well as change the student’s attitude tow ards learning English w ith cooperative learning (CL)

Below are the tw o main research questions:

1 To w hat extent do cooperative activities affect the reading skills o f EFL students

at Lang Son T raining C ollege o f Education?

2 W hat are the stu d en ts’ attitudes tow ards the use o f cooperative activities in

Lang Son C O E leaders on November, 2014, the researcher took ten w eeks to incorporate and do action procedures on December, 2014.

1 5 S ig n ific a n t o f th e stu d y

A fter ten w eeks applying cooperative learning activities, the study results on stu d en ts’

im provem ent on reading and their attitude tow ard reading with cooperative learning cooperative learning were reported The study brings a great significance to both teaching and learning via this learning m ethod It contributes to improve the reading courses held in English classes o f the

C O E in Lang Son The teachers w ho have not used cooperative learning (CL) in their reading classes are encouraged to use this approach and refresh their conventional way after seeing that the pilot program , designing and m odifying their ow n cooperative activities to suit each classes

M ore im portantly, using cooperative learning in ELT has been seen as an effective w ay to develop interpersonal com petence which in turn facilitates effective com m unication in English

CH A PTER II: L ITER A TU R E REVIEW

This chapter presents the theoretical frame o f the study The first section gives an overview o f reading com prehension nam ely its definition In the second section, a deep sight will be shed on the use o f cooperative learning based instruction in teaching reading com prehension A theoretical background o f cooperative learning approach in language instruction in general and its types will be provided A dditionally, the necessity to evaluate elem ents o f cooperative learning as well as criteria for teach er's role will be m entioned In accordance with these criteria, som e certain techniques are adopted to serve the action research o f this study

2 1 R e a d in g c o m p r e h e n sio n

2.1.1.Reading definition

Reading is one o f the skills that a learner o f foreign language should acquire Smith(1994) defines reading as an interaction betw een readers, w riters, and the text Reading is thinking and can never be separated from the purpose, p rior know ledge, and feelings o f the person engaged in the activity nor from the nature o f the tex t being read

Since reading is a com plex process, G rabe (1991) claim s that “m any researchers attempt

to understand and explain the fluent reading process by analyzing the process into a set o f com ponent skills” in reading, (p 379) Thus, it is essential to every aspect o f learning, and the purpose o f reading is to construct m eaning from tex t - com prehension, (Alderson, 2005) Harris and H odges, (1995) define the term reading com prehension as:

“The construction o f the m eaning o f a w ritten o r spoken com m unication through a reciprocal, holistic interchange o f ideas betw een the interpreter and the m essage The presumption here is that m eaning resides in the intentional problem -solving, thinking processes o f the interpreter that the content o f the m eaning is influenced by that p erson’s prior knowledge and experience.” (P-39)

Readers filter the text through their ow n background know ledge, biases, and other predispositions that affect how they interpret text The definition presented suggests that a key com ponent o f com prehension is the background or p rior know ledge that a reader brings to the reading task That background knowledge can include know ledge o f the format and conventions

o f reading and the printed page, it can include an understanding o f the purpose for the reading,

and, perhaps m ost especially, it needs to include some know ledge o f the content o f the material

to be read

M oreover, this implies that the reader interacts with the text content, using his o r her vocabulary, background know ledge, skills, m otivation to read that text, knowledge o f text structure, and strategies to construct meaning, (N R P, 2000) M any studies have dem onstrated that readers’ background know ledge profoundly affects how well they com prehend w hat they

read (e.g., A dam s & Bertram, 1980; D urkin, 1981; Pearson et al, 1979) M oreover, background

know ledge is particularly im portant for inferential com prehension, which involves constructing understandings o f information that is not directly stated in the passage but implied

A common definition for teachers m ight be that com prehension is a process in w hich readers construct m eaning by interacting with text through the com bination o f prior know ledge and previous experience, inform ation in the text, and the stance the reader takes in relationship to the text Duke (2003) added “navigation” and “critique” to her definition because she believed that readers actually m ove through the text, finding their way, evaluating the accuracy o f the text to see if it fits their personal agenda, and finally arriving at a self-selected location

The RAND Reading Study G roup (2002) defines com prehension as the intentional thinking during w hich m eaning is constructed betw een the reader and text: “the process o f sim ultaneously extracting and constructing m eaning through interaction and involvem ent with written language” (p 11) This process o f interaction and involvem ent with the text is a function o f both reader and

text variables that take place w ithin a larger social context (G oldm an, Saul, & Cot6, 1995;

M cNam ara & M agliano, 2009; RA ND R eading Study G roup, 2002) W hen successful, the product o f reading comprehension is a coherent m ental representation o f a text’s m eaning that is integrated with the reader’s prior knowledge

In short, from the researcher’s understanding, reading is an interactive process betw een the

reader and the text, resulting in com prehension The text provided information that the author wants the reader to understand in certain ways The reader brings a w ide range o f background know ledge to reading, and she o r he actively constructs the meaning o f the text by com prehending w hat the w riter intends and b y interpreting it in term s o f the background know ledge activated by the reader An appropriate understanding o f reading com prehension definitions w ould help the researcher to conduct her study on teaching reading com prehension in the right way

2.1.2 Principles f o r teaching reading

There are fundamental principles for teaching reading : The Teaching o f R eading Is

K now ledge-B ased: exploiting background know ledge includes all o f the experiences that a reader brings to a text: life experiences, educational experiences, know ledge o f how texts can be organized rhetorically, know ledge o f how o n e 's first language works, knowledge o f how the second language works, and cultural background and know ledge could enhance significantly enhanced if background knowledge can be activated by setting goals, asking questions, m aking predictions, teaching text structure, and so on (Carrell, 1983, Carrell and Connor, 1991)

R eading is a com plex cognitive and linguistic process: It involves decoding alphabetic

sym bols, draw ing upon experiences and language, and using strategies effectively to make

m eaning Successful reading depends upon having available a repertoire o f decoding and com prehension skills and strategies It depends upon the richness o f a learner's experiences and language, both in the world and with print It also depends upon a reader's view o f reading as a purposeful, informative, and enjoyable activity

Build a strong vocabulary base: Levine and Reves (1990) have found that “it is easier

for the read er o f academic texts to cope with special term inology than with general vocabulary” (p 37) T hey stress the great need for a teaching program that builds general, basic vocabulary The N ational Reading Panel (NRP) stated that vocabulary plays an im portant role both in learning to read and in com prehending text: readers cannot understand text w ithout know ing

w hat m ost o f the words mean “T eaching vocabulary will not guarantee success in reading, ju st

as learning to read words will not guarantee success in reading H ow ever, lacking either adequate

w ord identification skills or adequate vocabulary will ensure failure” (Biem iller, 2005)

T he conventions o f texts perm it the expectations o f readers and the intentions o f w riters

to meet In this process, the reader interacts dynam ically with the text as he/she tries to elicit the

m eaning and where various kinds o f know ledge are being used: linguistic or systemic know ledge (through bottom -up processing) as well as schem atic know ledge (through top-dow n processing) Gough (1972) assumed the bottom -up processing focus on how readers extract inform ation from the printed page, claim ing that readers deal with letters and w ords in a relatively com plete and system atic fashion that taking in stim uli from the outside world - letters and words, for reading - and deal with that information with little recourse to higher-level knowledge On success, the appropriate word representation in the long-term memory is activated and semantic inform ation

associated with a word becom es available W ith top-dow n processes, on the other hand, the uptake o f information is guided by an individual’s prior knowledge and expectations They perm it the integration o f w ord m eaning into a w ider context and hold the potential to bias expectations about upcom ing words Sm ith (1971) considered that readers form hypotheses about w hich words they will encounter and take in only ju st enough visual inform ation to test their hypotheses In m ost situations, bottom -up and top-dow n processes work together to ensure the accurate and rapid processing o f information.

2 2 C o o p e r a tiv e L ea r n in g

2.2.1 D efinition o f cooperative learning

D ifferent teaching and classroom m ethods have been the subjects o f m any researchstudies to find which types are the m ost beneficial for the students as far as preparing them for a productive and successful life through their education Klingner, V aughn & Schum m (1998) define cooperative learning as “students w orking together in small groups on a clearly defined task that requires the participation o f everyone in the group” (p.5) From the sam e aspect, Johnson & Johnson (1999) clarify cooperative learning as “the instructional uses o f small groups

so that students work together to m axim ize their ow n and each o th er's learning” (p.5)

C ooperative learning m ay be defined as an extended version o f com m unicative language teaching, it is useful w ay to create a learner- centered environm ent and em phasize learner interaction (Crandall, 1999) Cohen (1994) as quoted in G illies (2007) identifies the efficiency o f cooperative learning as a teaching strategy for students w hen they enroll to school, from the start point in kindergarten and keep supporting them thorough the tim e in college

C ooperative learning is also nam ed as an instructional m ethod in which sm all groups are used to m axim ize student learning Students w ork together in groups to accomplish shared goals (D W Johnson & R Johnson, 1999) M any teachers are realizing the gains in student learning

by transitioning from centralized discourse, in w hich the m ajority o f classroom dialogue stem s from teacher leadership, to decentralized discourse, in w hich student-led discussions direct learning This is because, as stated by O 'Flahavan (1995), "Teachers w ho transfer social and interpretive autonom y to student groups often enjoy seeing their students experience higher- order understandings and richer interpersonal relationships" (p 356) Conversational D iscussion

G roups (C O G ) is an exam ple o f this approach to learning in w hich the teacher form s student groups o f four to six students each for the purposes o f allow ing students to control their own

structures teachers coach students both before and after students m eet in groups Also, teachers support students during their group discussions (O 'Flahavan, 1995) As a result, student-driven discussions o f the instructional content direct the 20 paths o f learning rather than the teacher

A lthough groups are student-led, teachers m ust properly m onitor and structure the activities for students so that chaos and m isdirection does not occur during group work

C ooperative learning is rooted in V ygotsky’s theory Zone o f Proxim al D evelopm ent (ZPD) theory C om m unicative Language Teaching (C LT), and Input H ypothesis In com m unicative language teaching, students are the central roles in the classroom They assum e active, arguable and contributive roles (Nunan, 1989) In the com m unicative classroom , teachers attended to the input, interaction, and output in the target language That is, students ultim ately have to use the target language, productively and receptively, in unrehearsed contexts (Kagan, 1995) Teachers are facilitators o f students’ learning instead o f authoritative know ledge giver They bring learners

to a certain proficiency level with autonom y, so that they can adapt their knowledge to cope adequately with the dem ands o f new situations Pham (2007) recom m ends the use o f cooperative learning activities in CLT which based on p air o r group work He points out that CLT is a learner-centered approach, so it is cooperative learning in nature and w ants students to learn together in pairs o r in groups

The use o f cooperative learning techniques is not aim ed at abandoning the lecture, but rather using active learning techniques to supplem ent lectures Gillies (2007) proves this approach has been used successfully in various aspect o f learning, such as to encourage reading and w riting achievem ents am ong middle school students (Steven, 2003), understanding in high school science classes (Folley & O ’Donnell, 2002), problem solving in m athem atics (Sahlberg & Berry,

2002).

Briefly, from the above definitions o f cooperative learning, in this study, the researcher based

on Larsen’s (2000) definition that: “Cooperative learning essentially involves students learning from each other in groups” (p 164), which m eans that m em ber in the group has responsibility to help each other to deeply understand w hat the lesson is taught and it prom otes learning and fosters respect and friendships am ong diverse groups o f students Hence, cooperative learning aim s at easing the burden on the part o f individual students b y grouping them to read and solve their reading problem s w ithout depending on their teacher Teachers often em ploy cooperative activities in com m unicate tasks, especially in speaking lessons, because studies have show n that

students learn better through authentic, hands-on, learning activities M oreover, students learn best through small group interaction found in cooperative learning Realizing the advantages o f

C L to language learning, not only in com m unicate activities, the researcher believes that cooperative learning would be good for teaching reading to English-non m ajor freshm en at Lang Son C ollege o f Education

2.2.2.C ooperative learning versus traditional learning

Cooperative learning creates an interactive classroom for all students Atkins(2010) m entioned that advocates o f collaborative classroom s assum ed that students learn better from each other and that the teacher is not the only source o f inform ation in the classroom

C ooperative learning is a teaching strategy that m ixes students o f different ability levels and assigns them a single task to com plete as a group W hile, traditional learning is known as the oldest instructional format o f giving lectures and today it is still the m ost com m on form o f

instruction (Hrepic, Zollman & Rebello, 2007) A study by D oucet el al (1998) reported th at in

the lecture format learners are passive recipients o f know ledge in an externally driven process In this scenario, student efforts and m otivation are very individualistic

In practice, based on R enau’s (2016) view , the differences betw een cooperative learning and traditional learning were illustrated in the follow ing table

Cooperative Learning Traditional Learning

Student-centeredness T eacher-centeredness

Positive interdependence w ith structured

goals

N o positive interdependence

A ctive participation Passive participation

Tim e and location flexibility Tim e and location constraints

Em phasis on student’s cooperation Em phasis on student’s competition

A clear accountability for individual's

share o f the group's w ork through role

assignm ent and regular rotation o f the

assigned role

No accountability for individual share

o f the group’s w ork through role assignm ent and regular rotation o f the assigned role

Teaching o f collaborative skills A ssum ing that students already have the

required skillsTeacher observation o f student’s Little, if any at all, teacher observation

Table 2.1 D ifferences betw een cooperative team ing and traditional learning

The table show ed C'L benefits as an alternative approach- it advocated student-student com m unication; hence, oral language w as encouraged C oncerning to student- centeredness w as shifting the focus o f activity from the teacher to the learners could help them becom e active,

m otivate to learn and develop required skills in rotating roles and interacting others while

w orking in group A good understanding o f the differences betw een the tw o approaches directed the researcher in the process o f selecting p ro per C L activities for the study, and in analyzing the data collected to answ er the research questions

2.2.3 Types o f cooperative learning

There are m any w ays to im plem ent cooperative learning in college classroom s Johnsonand Johnson (1994) describe three types o f cooperative learning: cooperative base, inform alcooperative learning and form al cooperative learning groups Each has a place in providingopportunities for students to be intellectually active and personally interactive both inside andoutside the classroom C ooperative base group m eans a long-term “ learning group with stable

m em bership” (R ichards & R odgers, 2001, p i 96) w hich m ay last a year or m ore The prim arypurpose is for m em bers to give each other the support, help, encouragem ent, and assistance eachneeds to progress academ ically B ase groups personalize the w ork required and the courselearning experiences Inform al cooperative learning group is short-term grouping in which

m em bership is usually random and lasts from a few m inutes to one class period The teacher usesthem during direct teaching (lectures, dem onstrations) to focus student attention on the material

to be learned, set a mood conducive to learning, help set expectations about m aterial, w hat thelesson will cover, ensure that students are cognitively processing the m aterial being taught, andprovide closure to an instructional session T hey are often organized so that students engage infocused discussions before and after a lecture and interspersing tum -to-your-partner discussionsthroughout a lecture The third type -fo rm a l cooperative learning group may last from one classperiod to several weeks It can be used in content intensive classes where the m astery o fconceptual or procedural material is essential; how ever, m any faculties find it easier to start inrecitation o r laboratory sections o r design project courses The teacher can structure anyacademic assignm ent o r course requirem ent for form al cooperative learning "Form alcooperative learning groups ensure th at students are actively involved in the intellectual w ork o f

organizing m aterial, explaining it, sum m arizing it, and integrating it into existing conceptual

structures They arc the heart o f using cooperative learning" (Johnson el at, 1998, p.7) In this

study, the researcher only focused on formal cooperative learning group since they have the greatest potential for affecting language learners positively

A variety o f techniques and its activities have em erged in the field o f cooperative learning

w hich are used both in schools and higher levels o f education, best-know n and widely used nam ely: The Learning Together M ethod (Johnson & Johnson 1994), G roup Investigation (Sharan & Sharan, 1994), Team s-G am es-Toum am ent, Student Team s- A chievem ent Divisions (Slavin,1994), Jigsaw (Aranson as cited in G ood & Brophy, 2000), Jigsaw II (Slavin, 1994), Think- Pair- Share (Olsen & Kagan, 1992), and N um bered Heads Together (Stone & Kagan, 1995) These techniques can revitalize students and instructors by providing a structured environm ent for sharing some o f the responsibility for learning Through w orking together to learn com plex conceptual inform ation and m aster know ledge and skills, students leam and develop other skills, such as learning how to w ork w ith one another Instructors, w ho provide the foundation and learning structures to guide their students in this new learning experience

T he m ethods used in the C L group in this study included Three-Step Interview (Kagan, 1993), Inside-O utside C ircle (adapted from K agan, 1989), Learning Together (Johnson & Johnson, 1970s), and Students T eam s-A chievem ent Divisions (Slavin, 1977) Each o f these

m ethods em ployed in this study w ould be discussed in the follow ing sections

Three-Step Interview: Three-step interviews (Kagan, 1993) could be used as an

icebreaker for team mem bers to get to know one another o r can be used to get to know concepts

in depth, by assigning roles to students In Three-Step Interview, student A would interview B for

the specified num ber o f m inutes, listening attentively and asking probing questions (Kagan, 1993) A t a signal, students reversed roles and then B interview ed A for the sam e num ber o f

m inutes A t another signal, each pair turned to another pair, form ing a group o f four Each

m em ber o f the group introduced his or her partner, highlighting the m ost interesting points In

Three-Step Interview, students interview ed each other in pairs, first one way, and then they

sw itched their roles as interviewers and interviewees Students could share with the interviews about inform ation they had learned

In sid e -O u tsid e C irc le : The Inside-O utside Circle, first developed by Spencer Kagan

(1989), helped students review inform ation w hile they got to know their classmates It was

particularly useful for review and for m astering new vocabulary and sentence patterns To form

an Inside-Outside Circle, students worked in groups o f four or six Students stood in pairs in two concentric circles, with the inside circle facing out and the outside circlc facing in Students could use flash cards or respond to teacher questions as they rotate to each new partner It could

be a good strategy for checking understanding, review ing, processing, practicing dialogues in the textbooks, and m eeting classmates

The Inside-Outside Circle used in this study w as m ainly for group practice o f the

dialogues in the textbooks It was a powerful strategy for the redundant input and output, which were necessary in the acquisition o f a foreign language Besides, the practice was done in a group o f students forming circles, students were endow ed with the opportunities to interact with different partners each time they stepped one o r two steps to their right, o r to their left, depending on the teacher’s instruction W ith the frequent encounter o f new partners, the stu d en ts’ social perspective taking as well as paralinguistic com petence could gradually develop

Learning Together: Learning Together w as based on the social psychology (Deutsch,

1949; Johnson & Johnson, 1994) The key concept w as “interdependence.” This was investigated

by D eutsch (1949), a mentor o f David and R oger Johnsons w ho developed Learning Together

Interdependence concerned people’s perceptions o f how they affected and were affected b y w hat happened to others (Deutsch, 1949) Deutsch divided interdependence into two types: positive and negative, w ith a third possibility being that n o interdependence existed between people in a given situation In his research, Deutsch (1949) found that positive interdependence led to superior perform ance on objective and subjective measures The explicit emphasis that Learning Together placed on im proving group functioning was one im portant way that this m ethod

differed from STAD

Student-Team A chievem ent Division: Student-Team Achievement Division based on a

review o f the research on cooperative learning, Slavin (1987) argued that group contingencies are essential if sm all-group structures are to enhance achievem ent By group contingencies, Slavin (1987) m eant that “the behavior o f one or m ore group m em bers brings rewards to a group”, p.30 G roup contingencies w orked in tw o steps First, the teacher offered rewards or punishm ents to the groups Then, the group m em bers applied rew ards or punishments to each other Group contingencies motivated students to hope their team m ates do well Another

im portant behaviorist concept behind STAD w as vicarious reinforcem ent (Bandura, 1971),

which m eant that students learned not only by being rew arded o r punished them selves, but also

by seeing other people receive rewards or punishm ents

C ooperative learning, especially when students were heterogeneously grouped, offered

m any opportunities for students to experience positive m odels w ho were rew arded for their efforts There were two types o f m otivation involved in STAD: (1) intrinsic m otivation which flowed from w ithin a person, and (2) extrinsic m otivation that cam e from outside the person (Slavin, 1987) Slavin (1987) saw cooperative learning as a m ore efficient way o f delivering extrinsic motivators The m ethod o f STAD w as utilized in the first and the second phase o f this study It served as a strong enticem ent to enhance the participants’ m otivation In STAD, the teacher first lectured on the topic Then, students w ere assigned to heterogeneous team s in w hich they studied the learning material provided b y the teacher in preparation for a quiz Each student’s grade w as based on his o r her ow n score on the quiz But, at the sam e tim e, each student could contribute to a group score b y m aking im provem ents Each student’s contribution

to their g ro u p ’s score was based on how well they did on the quiz com pared to their own average score on past quizzes Thus, a relatively low achiever can contribute as much to their team as a high achiever w ithout doing as well on the quiz as their higher-achieving teammate The group score w as used to determ ine w hich groups receive rew ards, such as certificates and recognition

in newsletters

These C L types listed above were used in this study as a m eans to help student gain com petence in language skills not only in reading but also in speaking, listening and sum m arizing skills They prom oted equal participation, individual accountability, active engagem ent and continuous interaction am ong m em bers w hile doing cooperative activities As the main objective o f the C L treatm ent is to develop reading com prehension o f the students and the researcher aim ed to solve the problem encountered as m entioned in our background A t the sam e tim e, w e intended to encourage, with group w orking and cooperation skills, the solidarity and the intim ate learning atm osphere am ong the students The notion o f helping each other is the

m ost obvious in Learning Together technique which requires the equal contribution o f each

m em ber o f the group in their learning process as well as their accountability C onsequently, w e

found Learning Together appropriate cooperative learning m ethod for this study Due to lim ited

tim e allow ance (the real tim e for student practicing C L activities was 20 m inutes per lesson) and

the num ber o f students’ restraints (30 students), the researcher considered and found these CL activities flexible and available for her class.

2.2.4.E lem ents o f cooperative learning

Johnson and Johnson (1994) introduces five essential elem ents that are essential forproducing positive effects on student achievem ent: (1) positive interdependence, (2) individual accountability, (3) quality o f group interaction processing, (4) teaching o f cooperative skills, and (5) teaching o f social skills Each o f these five elem ents w ould be discussed in the follow ing sections:

(1) Positive Interdependence: Positive interdependence is creating the sense diat “w e

sink or sw im together” (Johnson el al, 1990) w hich exists w hen students perceive that they are

linked to other members in the group in such a w ay that they cannot succeed unless they all do and they m ust coordinate their efforts with each other in order to com plete the task T he group goal gives students incentive to w ork together and encourage each other Johnson and Johnson (1986) believe that students will not w ork m utually w ithout a com m on goal They argue th at “ in cooperative learning situations there is a positive interdependence among students’ goal attainm ent; students perceive that they can reach their learning i f and only i f other students in the learning group also reach their goal” (p.4) Slavin (1995) has the sam e idea saying that cooperative learning “is not enough to sim ply tell students to w ork together; they m ust have a reason to take one another’s achievem ent seriously” (p.5)

W hen positive interdependence is clearly understood, it establishes that each group

m em ber’s efforts are required and indispensable for group success (no “ free-riders”) as w ell as each group m em ber has a unique contribution to m ake to the jo in t effort because o f his o r her resources and/or role and task responsibilities (Johnson & Johnson, 1994) Therefore, a g ro u p ’s success depends on successful learning by everyone and produces positive interdependence Thus, group m em bers are m otivated to teach each other, to engage in behaviors that increase achievem ent, and to avoid behaviors that decrease achievem ent, such as giving o r receiving answ ers w ithout an explanation (Slavin, 1995)

(2) Individual A ccountability: Individual accountability is the elem ent, w hich m akes students believe that it is im portant for them to learn with the material Slavin (1995) defines individual accountability as “the team 's success depends on the individual learning o f all team

m em bers” (p.5) Each team m em ber feels in charge o f their own and their team m ates’ learning

and m akes an active contribution to the group Thus there w as no ‘hitchhiking’ o r ‘freeloading’ for anyone in a team — everyone contributes (K agan, 1990).

Individual accountability involves each student: (a) being responsible for part o f the task; (b) reporting to the group on their progress; (c) reporting on the gro u p 's progress to the whole class and (d) being rewarded (e.g., receiving bonus points) on the basis o f all group mem bers com pleting their tasks/goals The teacher m ust have a way o f determ ining w hat each individual has learned, as well as w hat the group has accom plished Students are evaluated via individual quizzes w ithout team m ate help Therefore, each student is responsible for learning the assigned material in order to respond correctly on these quizzes to contribute positively to the group score

A s a result, students must ensure that all group m em bers understand the material so that individual accountability m axim izes the achievem ent o f each student in the group

(3) Q uality o f Group Interaction Process: Face-to-face verbal interaction referred to the physical set up o f the group Once a professor establishes positive interdependence, he or she

m ust ensure that students interact to help each other accom plish the task and prom ote each other's success They are expected to explain orally to each other how to solve problem s, discuss

w ith each other the nature o f the concepts and strategies being learned, teach their know ledge to classm ates, explain to each other the connections between present and past learning, and help, encourage, and support each other's efforts to leam H ence, students needed to be clustered together in a tight group, facing each other, in order to have the kind o f interchange necessary to accom plish the task

The quality o f interaction w ould depend on a num ber o f factors such as: the grade and frequency in w hich the students cooperated am ong them selves in their academic tasks, giving feedback betw een each other in their learning activities, sharing learning experiences and life experiences, and supporting and engaging am ong them selves in their feelings and educational expectations In addition, a positive classroom environm ent w as also associated with the quality

o f group interaction The im plem entation o f an appropriate interaction process constitutes a

m ajor com ponent that helped to im prove the student outcom e in m any academic and behavioral problem s, and helped to establish a greater academ ic environm ent in the classroom (Aschettino, 1993)

(4) T eaching Interpersonal and Small G roup Skills: C ontributing to the success o f a cooperative effort requires team work skills Therefore, the teaching o f cooperative skills is

essential Placing socially unskilled students in a group and telling them to cooperate did not guarantee that they have the ability to do so effectively (Johnson & Johnson 1994) Students

m ust have and use the needed leadership, decision-m aking, trust-building, com m unication, and conflict-m anagem ent skills These skills have to be taught ju st as purposefully and precisely as

academ ic skills in order to run sm oothly Johnson et a l (1990) suggest that the interpersonal and

small group skills could be taught through a num ber o f m eans; first o f all, setting a social skills goal along with the academ ic goal lets students know it’s im portant to the teacher Secondly, it could be established through role playing, m odeling, and discussing the com ponents o f particular social skills (Cohen & Tellez, 1994)

Instructors often introduce and em phasize team w ork skills by assigning differentiated roles to each group member T he teach er’s role in this teaching m ethod w as not that o f som eone

w ho m easures the capacities o f the students in term s o f a final product but in term s o f the process That was, som eone w ho acted a friend, as a coordinator, as a director w ho guided his/her actors how to perform , and as an advisor in the academ ic tasks and in the psychosocial

and cognitive developm ent o f the students (C ow ei et al, 1994).

(5) T eaching o f the Social Skills: It is very im portant for students to have sufficient social skills, involving an explicit teaching o f appropriate leadership, com m unication, trust and conflict resolution skills so that they could cooperate effectively Schultz (1999) stated that social skills should be explicitly taught to the students so that students could w ork am ong them selves, not only in terms o f cooperation but also w ithout hostility and w ithout the teacher’s authority I f group m em bers lack the interpersonal and sm all-group skills to cooperate effectively, cooperative learning w ould not be productive (Johnson & Johnson, 1990, p 26)

The use o f C L alm ost alw ays im proves affective outcom es It is very im portant for the teacher to plan and structure the strategy to foster learning in the classroom Hence, besides mastering the content know ledge o f the discipline they teach, the teachers should also know and and put into practice the m ain features that lead to the success o f cooperative learning (C osio, 1998) Prom otive interaction facilitates and encourages each m em ber’s efforts to achieve, com plete tasks, and produce by im proving the effectiveness o f the members in contributing to achieve the g ro u p 's goals with efficient and effective help and assistance Therefore, students love to w ork in groups and they feel m ore successful and like subjects taught cooperatively

They have more friends o f different ethnic groups and are more accepting o f others different from them selves (Slavin, 1995).

The researcher h e rself assum ed five elem ents above as the main factors contributing to the success o f this study In cooperative learning, the teacher plays a significant role to incorporate elem ents o f cooperative learning and ensure that the students know how to work cooperatively in a cooperative learning situation The absence o f even one elem ent in the lesson will lead to a non-cooperative environm ent

2.2.5.B enefits o f cooperative learning

M any studies show increased academ ic achievem ent using cooperative learning in the college classroom suggest that cooperative learning prom otes significant cognitive results in reading class C L intends to im prove stu d en ts’ achievem ent in reading com prehension by em phasizing cooperative partner and group activities, clear learning goals and individual assessm ent G rabe (1991) prom otes the regular use o f cooperative learning activities in reading instruction “to prom ote discussions o f reading and to w ork with inform ation from the readings, exploring different solutions for com plex activities” (p.396)

Jigsaw , a popular C L activity, is used in reading activities to develop student’s “cognitive skills o f analysis, com parison, evaluation and synthesis o f inform ation” (Coelho, 1992, p 137) The students im prove these skills in tw o phases w ithin the Jigsaw method In the first phase, the students study their parts in the texts to becom e experts on that piece o f material In the second phase, students teach the content o f their part to their group m em bers and help them com prehend the reading m aterials By teaching th eir piece o f material the students “ further internalize both the content and the process o f their ow n learning” (Bejarano, 1994, p.203)

Jacob el al (1996) explore that the Learning Together m ethod allows students to ask

questions to one another and discuss answ ers to understand the academ ic language in the reading

m aterials Therefore, cooperative learning considers one strategy to im prove students reading com prehension so that they ascertain w hat they have read, because reading com prehension is an essential part o f learning A s a result, cooperative learning activities assisted learners in understanding the inform ation in the texts w hile they were studying the difficult academ ic terms and concepts in the reading m aterial The benefits o f cooperative learning gave inspiration and

m otivation to the researcher in applying C L in teaching at her college It offers a proven, practical m eans o f creating exciting social and engaging classroom environm ents to help students

to m aster traditional skills and know ledge as well as develop the creative and interactive skills needed in today’s econom y and society C ooperative learning is a great tool that can be used to improve student achievem ent in any classroom It also fosters tolerance and acceptance in the com m unity, which improves quality o f everybody's life.

2.2.6 Teacher's role in cooperative learning

C ooperative learning allow s teachers to create more learner-centered teaching and focusupon stud ents’ learning needs instead o f the m anner in w hich instruction is presented b y the teacher- using cooperative learning does not alter the teacher’s role in negative ways, such as sitting around and doing nothing in their classroom Teacher m ust continue to provide instruction, m onitor students’ activity, and prom ote positive socialization The teacher plays different roles such as supporter, observer, change agent and advisor in a cooperative classroom (W ang, 2007)

Johnson (1984, p.26) suggests five teacher roles in structuring cooperative learning strategies

as follow:

•> Teachers m ust determ ine the objectives for the lesson

*> They m ust distribute students in learning groups before the class is started

’> Teachers m ust explain the task and goal structure to the students

■> Teachers m ust m onitor groups during cooperative learning and intervene to assist students when they need assistance to improve interpersonal and group skills

"> Teachers m ust evaluate the achievem ent o f students and provide the evaluation to them

The teacher is “no longer a lecturer or transm itter o f m aterial, but rather a facilitator o f learning w ho focuses on the learning process by encouraging cooperation among the students” (Bejarano, 1987, p 485) In the role o f facilitator, the teacher gives students the opportunity to leam the material b y them selves w hile helping them i f need arises Teachers interact with students, encourage them to solve the problem s they encounter by using thinking skills, give feedback, clarify difficulties, and em pathize as a facilitator (M cDonell, 1992)

Teachers in cooperative language classroom s are also observers They listen to learners while they are studying in cooperative groups to discover the needs, interests, problem s, and strengths

o f learners These observations help the teacher gather inform ation about the learning process o f the students, and organize plans and activities according to this process (M cDonell, 1992) Teachers as observers also m ay intervene in the cooperative group activities if students in the

group need assistance or redirection tow ards the objectives o f the given tasks (Sharan, 1994) In order to achieve the objectives o f cooperative language learning and provide m axim um benefit, teachers have to create w ell-structured tasks, set the goals o f activities clearly, organize groups and assign students to different roles, and select suitable m aterials to be taught (Johnson & Johnson, 1994) The success o f all these preparations and effectiveness o f cooperative language learning depend on the b elief and the attitude o f the language teacher tow ards cooperative language learning.

T he role o f the researcher in C L -based teaching in this project is m ainly as a facilitator She had to interact with students, encourage them to solve the problem s they encounter by using thinking skills, give feedback, and clarify difficulties (M cD onell, 1992) Even though the teacher

in this class knew her students w ell, the researcher did directly participate in the teaching process Thanks to the support o f the m ain teacher, the researcher could consider the different learning skills, cultural background, personalities, and even gender w hen arranging cooperative groups G rouping o f students could be a d ifficu lt process and m ust b e decided w ith care

2 3 S t u d e n t’s a ttitu d e to w a r d s c o o p e r a t iv e le a r n in g

In addition to addressing the effects o f cooperative learning on the learners’ acquisition o freading com petence, the present study also studied the learners’ attitude change A ttitude is a com plex psychological construct It refers, in one definition, to “a learned predisposition to respond in a consistently favorable o r unfavorable m anner w ith respect to a given object” (F ishbein & A jzen, 1975, p 6, cited in M cK enna, 1994)

2.3.1.E n han cing stu den t's cognitive grow th

C ooperative learning is constructed on the three cognitive theories: Piagetian, V ygotskianand Social Learning theories w hich center largely on the developm ent o f h u m an ’s cognition; thus, one o f the crucial aim s o f C ooperative L earning is strengthening the learners’ cognitive process Piagetian theory deem s learners to be active participants in th eir ow n learning rather than recipients o f inform ation and know ledge H ence, C ooperative Learning suggests that learning w ould be more m eaningful i f learners should experim ent on their ow n learning instead

o f listening to the teacher’s lectures Furtherm ore, conflicts resolution w ill help prom ote students’ cognitive grow th (M urray, 1994) V ygotskian theory highlights that learners’ cognition

is reinforced when they are in the action o f interacting w ith people in th eir environm ent and in cooperation with her/his peers Therefore, in language learning it is indispensable to create an

authentic and com m unicative environm ent in which learners can make myriad interactions with different people (Vygotsky, 1978) Eventually, B andura’s (1971) Social Learning theory stresses the im portance o f m odeling and observing the attitudes, behaviors, and emotional reactions o f others Social learning theory explicates human behaviors in term o f continuous interaction betw een behavioral, cognitive, and environm ental impacts W orking in teams, consequently, provides learners with a variety o f opportunities to leam from each other and to attain a higher cognition.

2.3.2.E nhancing stu den t’s m otivation

B ossert (1988) argues that m otivation is one o f the potential mediating processes

w hereby cooperative learning affects achievem ent To m otivate learners, it is vital to increase learners’ self-confidence, satisfy their needs and interests (N unan and Lam b, 1996) and create a pleasant, relaxing atm osphere in the classroom (D om yei and C sizer, 1998) In the Cooperative Learning classroom , a relaxing and com fortable atm osphere is form ed and the self-esteem is strengthened since Cooperative Learning creates a strong social support system in which learners feel respected and connected to one another (C ohen and W illis, 1985) A ccording to Bossert, peer encouragem ent may im prove task engagem ent, and the novelty o f cooperative learning tasks causes students to shift attentional resources Teachers function as facilitators and interact with learners while circulating through the class and observing learners’ interaction (C ooper et

al, 1985) Furtherm ore, w orking with others prom otes academic engagem ent through the added responsibility o f group perform ance, w hich causes individuals to persist at difficult tasks longer than they norm ally would A nxiety, m oreover, is dim inished and self-confidence is enhanced since the class attention is not focused on an individual but on a w hole group and w hen an error

is m ade, it becom es a teaching tool rather than a public criticism (Slavin and Kaweit, 1981) Thus, students feel free to expose their language w ithout hesitation

A lthough there are several studies on attitudes o f students tow ards cooperative learning, the attitudes o f students tow ards cooperative language learning has not been widely studied The research on cooperative language learning including students is m ostly about its effect on achievem ent (Bejarano, 1987; G haith, 2003), anxiety, self-confidence, and motivation (Crandall, 1999; D om yei, 1997; G haith, 2003; O xford, 1997) However, achievem ent, anxiety, self- confidence, and motivation may be a directly related to attitudes For instance, Clement,

D om yei, and Noels (1994) found a correlation betw een student attitudes and their achievem ent,

anxiety, self-confidence, and m otivation A ccording to the results o f the questionnaires, students who had positive attitudes tow ards learning English as a foreign language were those w ho had low anxiety, high achievement, and m otivation Since the use o f cooperative language learning reduces anxiety and may increase achievem ent, self-confidence, and m otivation, students are likely to have positive attitudes tow ards use o f cooperative learning activities in language learning settings.

There are also studies on the relationship betw een achievem ent level o f students and their attitudes tow ards their courses and cooperative learning In eight experim ental studies reported

by Shachar (2003), both high achievers and low achievers in classes w here cooperative learning methods were used developed positive attitudes tow ards their courses, teachers, school, and cooperative learning A decline w as observed in positive attitudes o f high achievers and low achievers in the control groups, w here traditional w hole class instruction was used It w as also to high achievers In an earlier study (G haith, 2001) w hich w as conducted with participation o f sixty-one Lebanese EFL learners, one o f the cooperative learning m odels, STAD, w as used for instruction A fter a tw elve-w eek treatm ent, both high and low achievers considered the STA D experience useful for their learning T hey also recom m ended the use o f the strategy for their future classes In addition, none o f the low achievers reported that they did not learn, and only 3% o f high achievers reported that th ey did not leam a lot

2 4 P r e v io u s e m p ir ic a l s tu d ie s o n c o o p e r a tiv e le a r n in g in ter v e n tio n

Over the years, cooperative learning has been a highly researched topic in education and hasshow n achievem ents for the learners C ooperative learning strategies have arrived as a popular option to traditional instruction due to th e positive influence on student esteem, perform ance, and on-task behavior (M ills & D urden, 1992) M ajoka , K han, and Shah (2 0 1 1) looked at the impact

o f cooperative learning and traditional m ethods o f teaching in social studies The quantitative experim ental study com pared achievem ent scores am ong all the students at the elem entary level

in public schools o f the M ansehra D istrict in Pakistan 100 participants were divided equally between control group and experim ental group Students w ere placed in each group based on the mean scores o f a pre-test Tw o teachers w ere selected fo r the study, each having the sam e academic qualification and teaching experience Students in the control group were taught using

a lecture m ethod for each o f the three parts o f the lesson The experim ental group experienced one day o f direct teaching follow ed by a w orksheet and team tim e Statistical tools used in the

study were standard deviation, effect size, and percentile point gain The pre-test and post-test scores served as the data o f the study M ajoka, Khan, and Shah concluded student learning in a cooperative classroom enhanced the students’ ability to learn in the subject o f social studies

A dditionally, cooperative learning proved to be m ore effective than the traditional m ethod for students labeled as high and average achievers Several factors could lim it the findings in this particular study First, utilizing two different teachers could possibly skew the results A lthough the teachers have sim ilar backgrounds, there is no specific w ay to gauge w hether o r not the control group and the experim ental group w ould have scored the sam e if only one teacher was utilized Second, the sample size o f 100 students could be larger Finally, the academ ic ability o f the students com prising the two groups is vague

W ang (2011) studied collaborative learning as a new m ethod for im proving college student’s autonom y in China He had two groups o f students The first group included 64 students who

w orked corporately, whereas the second group included 62 students w ho w ere taught in a traditional way The findings show ed that collaborative learning increased autonom y and students learned better than the traditional way W ang (1992) used C L techniques in the gram m ar course; Lin (1997) conducted a reading class for ju n io r college students by group w ork project

M oreover, there are research studies have investigated the effects o f cooperative learning on students’ learning in Vietnam A n experim ental study o n the effects o f jig saw learning on

V ietnam ese tertiary students’ longer term achievem ent in a course o f M anagem ent o f Education and A dm inistration (Tran, 2016) Students in the cooperative jig sa w group, perceived their instruction as m ore cooperative and m ore student-centered, and less teacher-centered than did those in the lecture group They also obtained significantly higher scores on a post experim ent achievem ent test than did the others Results indicate that in general students in the cooperative jigsaw group appreciated m ost w orking with others and getting help, discussing and sharing inform ation and teaching others, and enjoyed the jig saw context This paper furthers that analysis

by investigating students’ know ledge retention The findings show that a m onth after the experim ent, students in the jig saw group had greater long-term achievem ent than those did in the lecture group However, students in both groups had a sim ilar percentage o f know ledge retention

on the delay test o f achievem ent They retained nearly all o f w hat they had learned (approxim ately 99 percent o f know ledge) a m onth after the six w eeks o f the instruction

Luu (2010) investigated student diversities in term s o f learning styles and linguistic com petence, and the extent to which students change as regards participation, interaction and achievem ent through C ooperative Learning activities em bracing their diversities 77 first-year EFL students from from the two reading classes, one treated as the experim ental group (E G ) and the other as the control group (C G ), at the Faculty o f English Linguistics o f the U niversity o f Social Sciences and H um anities in Ho Chi M inh C ity (U SSH -H C M C ) w ere invited to participate

in the study The findings substantiated learner resistance in the first few w eeks o f the study displays teachers’ rush in incorporating C ooperative Learning activities, w hich, according to

Johnson et al in C ircles o f Learning (1993), should be structured layer after layer, m uch like

peeling an onion, until the heart is reached H ow ever, learner gains in the rest o f the study dem onstrate that V ietnam ese learners are open to change and V ietnam ese EFL teachers should create effective activities for learners to im m erse them selves in talking cooperatively instead o f talking individualistically in the classroom s

Le (1999) carried out a case study o f cooperative learning in inorganic chem istry tutorials at

V ietnam N ational U niversity in H o Chi M inh T he study investigated students' behaviors when they were studying in this environm ent, students' beliefs about cooperative learning and their attitudes tow ard this learning-teaching m ethod T w enty-seven students in C hem istry D epartm ent

o f the N atural Science U niversity at V ietnam N ational U niversity in Ho Chi M inh C ity participated in the study during six tutorial periods Findings o f this study indicated th at students becam e m ore active and they tried to study hard in a cooperative learning environm ent The

m ajority o f students believed that th eir understandings w ere enriched and their reasoning abilities

w ere developed in this learning environm ent, and learning together enhanced their interpersonal relationships

A review o f these previously stated studies dem onstrates the effectiveness o f cooperative learning m ethods in the classroom T he dynam ics o f the group setting offer students an opportunity to not only interact with the learning m aterial differently, but also allow students to interact with each other T he effect o f this interaction w hen com bined w ith heightened levels o f

m otivation increase student achievem ent All o f the application o f C L m entioned above improved stu d en t’s language learning and th eir attitudes tow ard learning were positive Since CL approach was applied, the researcher observed and determ ined how students react to the method and w hether they m ade good progress The valuable feedback received from students w as a good

sign O nly for few weeks, the students were fam iliar with this m ethod and found it interesting Once the lesson started, students were involved in tasks and active joined related C L activities promptly The num ber o f students did assignm ents and prepared for the new lessons increasingly It can be said that the researcher had succeed in breaking the ice that students preferred innovative teaching m ethods to traditional ones Hence, collecting the data process for the study was conveniently and rapidly conducted.

CHAPTER III: LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter is designed to discuss all the aspects related to the research m ethodology o f themain study It contains research m ethodology and m ethods with four steps o f an action research, data collection procedures data analysis and ethical consideration which would be described in detail in the com ing section o f this chapter As discussed in the rationale for the present research, the aim o f this study is to investigate the im plem entation o f C L on reading learning o f non- English m ajor freshmen at Lang Son COE The study also figures out i f there is a significant difference in the attitude o f students tow ards C L for reading learning For such purposes, this action research study was designed to answ er the follow ing research questions:

1 To what extent do cooperative activities affect the reading skills o f EFL students at

Lang Son College o f Education?

2 What are the students' attitudes towards the use o f cooperative activities in learning reading?

3.1.Research methodology and Methods

3.1.1.Research methodology

This thesis is a quantitative research design In order to explore the effects o f cooperativelearning on teaching reading am ong students in depth, questionnaires and tests w ere em ployed as the main instrum ents o f the research with the quantitative m ethod approach The m ost im portant part o f quantitative studies is analyzing the data through statistics based on m athem atically based

m ethod w hich converting phenom ena and solve hypothesis logically and statistically Leedy and Ormrod, 2001, p 102) affirm “Q uantitative researchers seek explanations and predictions that will generate to other persons and places The intent is to establish, confirm, or validate relationships and to develop generalizations that contribute to theory”

Creswell (2003) states that quantitative research “em ploy strategies o f inquiry such as experim ental and surveys, and collect data on predeterm ined instruments that yield statistical

data” (p 18) M oreover, the quantitative research design is an excellent w ay o f finalizing results and proving or disproving a hypothesis The findings from quantitative research can be predictive, explanatory, and confirm ing, (Cresw ell, 2003).

An action research design was applied in this study C lassroom action research is a research that lim ited to a population or subject, place and condition It is conducted to identify a problem and decide the right treatm ent or action to solve it The research is usually done in circular stages and every stage should identify the progress o f the subject The purpose o f choosing this design was

to determ ine the im provem ent by applying C L in the class in order to enrich student’s English reading learning competence

Ft can be seen that action research is a flexible spiral process, which allow s action (change and im provem ent) and research (understanding/know ing) to be achieved at the same tim e Teachers use action research for the follow ing reasons (M ills, 2011, p 15):

♦ Encourages change in the schools

♦ Fosters a dem ocratic (i.e., involvem ent o f m any individuals) approach to education

♦ E m p o w e rs individuals through collaboration on projects

♦ Positions teachers and other educators as learners w ho seek to narrow the gap between

practice and their vision o f education

♦ E n c o u ra g e s educators to reflect on their practices

♦ P ro m o te s a process o f testing new ideas

F or the above-m entioned reasons, action research is chosen as the m ethodology for this study as it is believed to give positive result and advantage to both the respondents and the researcher Cooperative learning will becom e an effective teaching strategy that w ould improve stu d en t’s reading skills The design used in the research adopted from Ferrance (2000):

/ Planning

■/ Identifying the issue to be changed

S Looking elsew here for inform ation Sim ilar projects m ay be useful, as might

professional reading

S D eveloping the questions and research m ethods to be used

•/ D eveloping a plan related the specific environm ent In the school setting, this could

involve personnel, budgets and the use o f outside agencies

2 Acting

S Trailing the change follow ing your plan

S C ollecting and com piling evidence

J Q uestioning the process and m aking changes as required

3 Observing

•/ A nalyzing the evidence and collating the findings

S D iscussing the findings with co-researchers and /o r colleagues for the interpretation

J W riting the report

v'' Sharing findings with stakeholders and peers

4 Reflecting

■S Evaluating the first cycle o f the process

S Im plem enting the findings o r new strategy

S Revisiting the process

The procedure m ight be represented diagram m atically as this:

1 Planning- this was the preparation phrase including tw o steps:

a, designing the lesson plan, choosing the authentic m aterial and vocabulary related to the topics based on stu d en t's current textbook : “ N ew C utting Edge -E lem en ta ry level” published by the Longm an (2005)

b, designing the instrum ents (tests, observation notes and questionnaire)

2 A cting:

The researcher decided to integrate cooperative activities into reading lesson during ten w eeks from 8 th D ecem ber, 2014 to 26Ih January, 2015 (B efore T et Holiday) There are four English lessons per w eeks (tw o hours) in w hich cooperative practice activities were applied in the

classroom , especially in the reading sessions

a, the students were asked to do the pre-test individually (on N ovem ber 20,2014 as indicated earlier) The content o f test m ainly designed in the form o f ‘closed te st’ and assigned in pre­interm ediate level The objective o f the pre-test w as to assess current reading skills o f students

b, Each lesson w as divided into two m ain parts :

D iscourse time: Teacher introduced and developed the reading topics with related vocabulary Lesson plans for teaching taken from prim ary sources such as fam ily, m en & w om en, law,

m oney, profession, work and study For each specific lesson, teacher gave b rie f inform ation o f the topic, the hand-outs o f new vocabulary

Practice tim e: Teacher checked th at students w ere fam iliar to the topic as well as new w ords (the

m eaning, the w ritten and spoken form) A fter that, in speaking lesson, students had the

opportunity to utilize and com prehended th e targ et reading texts and related vocabulary in

cooperative activities such as T hree-S tep Interview , Inside-O utside C ircle, Learning Together and Students T eam s-A chievem ent D ivisions In the practice tim e, teachers took the procedure: guiding the activity, setting up the group o f four o r five students, m onitoring stu d en t’s activities and providing feedback

3 O bserving:

T he student perform ance in reading com prehension im provem ent, vocabulary com petence and m otivation w ere observed throughout the action research procedure Besides, the researcher and the hom eroom teacher o f class 1TN-K35 discussed and gave an observation sheet to collect the data from student’s participation during the treatm ent Participation was m easured by how

m uch interaction students had w hile w orking together, the am ount interaction by students concerning the w ork, and how m uch students participated in the intervention A fterw ards, pre- and post- tests w ere delivered to evaluate the stu d en ts’ reading and vocabulary know ledge that had been introduced to students To investigate the stu d en ts’ attitudes tow ard cooperative activities, a questionnaire w as given at the end o f the course

4 Reflecting:

At the end o f the ten w eeks o f applying cooperative activities for reading practice, the researcher evaluated the effectiveness o f the interventions Data was collected to see w hether collaborative activities were effective for learning reading learning and relevant vocabulary as well as to find out problem s for further research

3.1.2.2 Q uestionnaires

3 I 2 2 I R a tio n a le fo r th e u s e o f s u r v e y q u e s tio n n a ir e s

Q uestionnaire is chosen for this study for the follow ing reasons

Firstly, questionnaire, one kind o f self-reporting instrum ents, is fam iliar w ith teachers w ho are interested in classroom research It is u su ally in w ritten form , co nsisting o f open an d /o r close questions and other probes requiring a response from subjects (N unan, 1992) It is an effective

w ay o f collecting inform ation about “affective dim ensions o f teaching and learning, such as beliefs, attitudes, m otivations, and preferences, and enable a teacher to collect a large am ount o f

inform ation relatively quickly” (R ichards et al, 1994, p 10).

Secondly, it is believed th at questionnaire costs little m oney as w ell as tim e to collect data from a potentially large n um ber o f respondents A dditionally, the data collected from questionnaire is relatively easy to sum m arize and analyze as all the inform ants answ er the sam e questions M oreover, according to W allace (1998, p 131), i f a teacher w anted to find out the attitudes o f his or her class to som ething, “ it m ay be quite feasible and convenient to give questionnaire” This instrum ent, thus, w as expected to be helpful in getting inform ation about different aspects o f the stu den ts' behaviors and classroom activities in the current study

3 1 2 2 2 D e s c r ip tio n o f q u e s tio n n a ir e s

For this study, two questionnaires w ere used to co llect data The first questionnaire (see

A ppendix 1) was used to collect initial data to investigate the stu d en t’s level o f proficiency in English classroom activities and the factors discouraging students to learn English and reading It consists o f 13 closed-ended item s and divided into tw o m ain parts Q uestion 1 and 2 were designed to collect data about learners’ previous English learning experiences T he stu d en ts’ perception o f their English level w as identified in Q uestion 3 N ext, Q uestion 4 aim ed to collect data about the stu d en ts’ attitude to th e im portance o f learning English T he stu d en ts’ attitude to

th e im portance o f English reading w as probed in Q uestions 5 In the next nine questions five- point rating L ikert’s scale w as applied Q uestion 6 to Q uestion 13 exam ined stu d en ts’ attitudes to the reading course

T he second questionnaire w as used at the end o f the action research to exam ine the student’s attitude tow ard o f using C L in English reading lessons after ten w eeks intervention This questionnaire used in the study w as developed b y M cL eish (2009) originally contained 27 item s and each item rated on 1 to 5 scales from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)

H ow ever, the researcher consulted her supervisor about these item s, and finally decided to select

7 items that w ere related to cooperative learning (see A ppendix 2) The questionnaire included three questions: Q uestion 1 asked again th e stu d en ts’ opinions o f their English level, Q uestion 2 asked the student’s view on C L activities, Q uestion 3 included five m ain parts: positive interdependence (Item 1 and 2), individual accountability (Item 3 and 4), and the quality o f group interaction (Item 5), teaching o f sm all group skills (Item 6) and teaching o f social skills (Item 7)

3 2 T h e in te r v e n tio n

C ooperative learning based instruction

T he class received C L instruction and w as divided into sm all groups o f three o r four

m em bers based on reading p retest scores at the beginning o f the study In the first tw o w eeks o f the study, the instructor spent about 15 m inutes each w eek guiding the students to practice CL strategies and skills through explanation and coaching In the C L classroom , students were asked to preview the unit text and prepare individual questions before class, and then bring the questions to class for cooperative learning D uring class collaboration, group m em bers clarified

w ord m eanings and confusing texts, and then engaged in a discussion to determ ine the answ ers

to their questions D uring group discussion, the researcher helped the students resolve

m isunderstandings, offered feedback, and facilitated discussions Follow ing a group discussion, students were encouraged to ask questions on the text they had read, and the teacher offered a

b rie f lecture to clarify any confusing text and resolve their questions Finally, students w ere tested individually w ith a unit reading com prehension quiz developed by the instructor

The below table show s m ore details :

Phase 1 : W eek 1-5

W eek 1 Pre-test & Pre-questionnaire

Listen cooperative activities instruction

A nsw er questions

All about you

instructionListen teach er’s lessonintroduction

Take note vocabularyhandout

T eam building : three-step interview

R o le assignm ents : Leader, reporter, tim er and checker

A nsw er questions

R eceive teach er’s feedback

Ten w ays to im prove your

m em ory

W eek 3 Listen cooperative activities

instructionListen teach er’s lessonintroduction

Take note vocabularyhandout

T eam building : learning together

Role assignm ents : Leader, reporter, tim er and checker

Take note vocabulary handout

Team building : inside- outside circle

Role assignm ents : Leader, reporter, tim er and checker

A nsw er questions

R eceive teach er’s feedback

introductionTake note vocabularyhandout

Team building : three-step interview

Role assignm ents : Leader, reporter, tim er and checker

A nsw er questions Receive teach er’s feedback

H ave you got w hat it takes?

Phase 2 : W eek 6-10

W eek 6 Listen teach er’s lesson

introductionPrepare vocabulary handout (assigned group)

Do a presentation o n reading text ((assigned group)

R ole play

A nsw er questions

R eceive teach er’s feedback

The great international night out

W eek 7 Listen teach er’s lesson

introductionPrepare vocabulary handout (assigned group)

Do a presentation o n reading text ((assigned group)

Role play

A nsw er questions Receive teach er’s feedback

M achines behaving badly

introductionPrepare vocabulary handout

G etting it right? G etting it

w rong?