The effects of cooperative learning activities on improving students’ perception and attitudes towards writing skills at international school, vietnam national university hanoi
With the aim to explore the effectiveness of cooperative learning (CL) activities on improving
students’ perception and attitudes towards writing skills, the researcher employed two different
teaching methods to teach two groups in 10 weeks: CL for experimental group and traditional
method for control group. Traditional group learning method only puts students to sit and group
without further assistance and careful structure to make group work become teamwork; whereas
cooperative learning goes strictly with five elements including positive independence, individual
accountability, quality group processing, explicit teaching of small group skills and teaching of
social skills. A pre- and post- questionnaire were delivered to students at the beginning and the end
of the experiment and the data was analyzed to find out to what extend each method affected
students’ interest and perception about writing skill. Results from the analysis show that CL is an
intriguing and effective way for students to learn writing skills. Learning in groups is generally
more interesting and beneficial for their writing performance, especially for those steps like
brainstorming ideas or editing essays.
Experimental group Control group Mean Difference p Mean Difference p 1 The ease of writing skills .94 .026 .38 .06 2 The importance of writing skills 1.05 .002 .38 .09 3 The interest of writing skills 1.26 .000 .38 .09 4 Time spent to understand the topic .78 .007 .77 .004 5 Making outlines before writing .42 .21 .72 .038 6 Following the prepared outline when writing .68 .008 .27 .42 7 Correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes when writing .73 .012 .16 .38 8 Revising essays before finishing them .42 .11 .77 .035 9 Editing vocabulary when finishing the essay 1.57 .000 .66 .035 10 Editing grammar when finishing the essay 1.73 .000 .05 .77 Table 3. Comparing pre- and post- responses of 2 groups concerning cooperative writing activities Statements about cooperative writing Mean N SD Mean Difference t p Experiment Pre –questionnaire 27.05 19 2.77 5.94 6.97 .000 Post – questionnaire 33.0 19 1.94 Control Pre –questionnaire 26.44 18 3.12 1.22 1.38 .183 Post – questionnaire 27.66 18 3.27 Table 2 presents that, in general, after the experiment the attitudes of students in the experimental group toward writing skills improved remarkably in almost all aspects. As shown in Table 2, they had the most improvement in the attitudes toward editing vocabulary and grammar before submitting the essay and the importance and the interest of writing skills with all mean differences above 1.0. Likewise, there was an improvement in the perception of students in the control group about time spent for understanding the topic before writing and editing grammar before submitting with both mean differences being .77. Especially, while the attitudes of the experimental group toward making outlines before writing and revising the essay did not change, the control group changed positively. 3.2 Analysis of questionnaire about cooperative writing With regard to questionnaire about cooperative learning, the results indicated in Table 3 means that although the responses of students in the experimental group about cooperative writing were not very good at the beginning of the course, then they improved after 10 weeks taking part in cooperative learning classrooms. In the meanwhile, the attitudes and perception of students in the control group toward cooperative learning did not change. Table 4 presents that, in general, after the treatment students in the experimental group had better attitudes and perception toward all aspects of cooperative writing (p-value for all items < 0.05). They recognized that cooperative writing was a good way for them to learn writing effectively (p value for item 1< 0.05). They also agreed that doing stages of writing with friends was more interesting and beneficial for their writing and wished to have more chances to take part in more cooperative activities (p value for item 2,3,4,10< 0.05). However, the attitudes of students in the control group toward Tran Thi Lan Huong TNU Journal of Science and Technology 199(06): 79 - 86 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 85 cooperative learning did not change much (p value for most items >0.05). At the beginning of the course, they neither thought that learning in groups was an effective way to learn writing skills nor wished to take part in cooperative learning (p value for item 1,10 > 0.05) and then after the course, they kept their opinion unchanged although they agreed that learning in groups was somehow good for editing essays, improving grammar and being more confidence in speaking and writing (p value for item 4,6,7 <0.05). Table 4. Comparing the pre-test and post-responses within two groups concerning cooperative writing Number Items Experimental group Control group Mean Difference p Mean Difference p 1 The effectiveness of cooperative learning 1.89 .000 .33 .11 2 Planning a topic with friends 1.0 .005 .05 .79 3 Revising an essay in groups 1.1 .000 .22 .21 4 Editing an essay in groups 1.47 .000 .61 .012 5 Improvement in critical thinking thank to cooperative learning .57 .023 .05 .85 6 Confidence in speaking and writing thank to cooperative learning 1.15 .000 1.05 .002 7 Acquiring vocabulary better thank to cooperative learning 1.15 .001 .5 .04 8 Improving grammar thank to cooperative learning .84 .014 .27 .35 9 Getting higher scores in exams thank to cooperative learning .89 .006 .27 .096 10 Preference to be involved in more cooperative learning 1.94 .000 .33 .13 4. Conclusions and implications 4.1. Summary of the findings Concerning students’ attitudes toward writing skills and cooperative writing, the findings reveal that there were positive changes in their attitudes. At the beginning of the course, students did not think that writing skills was important or interesting, but after 10 week treatment, their opinion changed for the better. At the end of the course, students also had good perception about the stages of writing. For example, they were better aware of the priority of each stage such as checking content of writing during revising stage and checking accuracy during editing stage. With regard to cooperative writing, there was also improvement in students’ attitudes after the experiment. Most of students agreed that cooperative learning was a good method to learn writing skill and they preferred to be involved in more cooperative learning in the future. 4.2. Recommendations The recommendations are combining traditional approach and cooperative approach, training students carefully about cooperative learning, assigning groups of different abilities and getting students to write group’s diary. Since each approach has its own strengths, teachers should combine flexibly traditional and cooperative approach basing on the specific teaching context to have the most effectiveness. Besides, when cooperative approach is applied, students need to be carefully trained about cooperative learning because without training cooperative learning will not be beneficial. Students should understand that cooperative learning means encouraging each other sharing responsibility with each other and trusting each other. They should also be Tran Thi Lan Huong TNU Journal of Science and Technology 199(06): 79 - 86 Email: jst@tnu.edu.vn 86 instructed how to work collaboratively such as how to brainstorm together, how to discuss an essay, how to give comments and get feedbacks. However, in order to avoid the situation that some students rely too much on other group’s member, a group should have a diary in which each member’s contribution in each lesson is recorded. This is also a good way to remind students of their responsibility when doing group work. 4.3. Limitations of the study The study is a relatively small scale one with 37 writing papers from two groups and 37 questionnaire respondents. This may be a hindrance which prevents the researcher from getting more precise findings related to cooperative learning. Secondly, the experiment was just carried out with intermediate students, not students of all levels, thus the results cannot be generalized to all EFL students at VNU-IS. REFERENCES [1]. Gillies, R.M. & Ashman, A.F., Cooperative learning: the social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups, London: Routledge, 2003. [2]. Graham, D., Cooperative learning methods and middle school students, Unpublished PhD thesis, Capella University, 2005. [3]. Gabriele, A.J., “The influence of achievement goals on the constructive activity of low achievers during collaborative problem solving”, British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77 (1), 121-141, 2007. [4]. Williams, J., Preparing to teach writing: Research, theory and practice, 3rd Ed, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, 2003. [5]. Ahangari, S. & Samadian, Z., “The Effect of Cooperative Learning Activities on Writing Skills of Iranian EFL Learners”, Linguistics and Literature Studies, 2 (4), 121 – 130, 2014. Doi: 10.13189/lls.2014.020403. [6]. Albesher, K.B., Developing the writing skills of ESL students through the collaborative learning strategy, 2012. Retrieved online September, 13th, 2014 from g_Writing_Skills_through_Cognitive_and_Co mpensatory_Learning_Strategies. [7]. Grami, A., The effects of Intergrating Peer Feedback into University-Level ESL Writing Curriculum: A Comparative Study in a Saudi Context, Doctoral dissertation, Newcastle University, 2010. [8]. Tran. T. H. L., The effects of cooperative writing activities on improving second-year- students at Tay Bac University, Unpublished MA Thesis. Vietnam National University, 2009. [9]. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R., “New Developments in Social Interdependence Theory”, Genetic, Social, & General Psychology Monographs, 131 (4), pp.285- 358, 2005. [10]. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A., Cooperative Learning: Increasing College Faculty Instructional Productivity. Washington, D.C: The George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development, 1991. [11]. McGroarty, M., “Cooperative learning and second language acquisition”, Cooperative learning: A response to linguistic and cultural diversity, 2, (1), 19-46, 1993. [12]. Jolliffe. W., Cooperative Learning in the Classroom: Putting it into Practice, Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2007. [13]. Stahl, R.I., The essential elements of cooperative learning in the classroom, 1994. Retrieved online September 20th 2014 from http:/www.ed.gov/pubs/OR/ConsumerGuides/ cooplear.html. [14]. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E., Cooperation in the classroom, Edina: Interaction Book Company, 1993.
File đính kèm:
- 564_2200_1_pb_8097_2143971.pdf