The effect of cooperative learning techniques on college students’ reading

comprehension

Presenter: York Chi

Instructor: Dr. Pi-Ying Hsu

Date: May 5, 2010

1

Jalilifar, A. (2010). The effect of cooperative

learning techniques on college students’

reading comprehension. System, 38, 96-108.

2

Reflection

Results & Conclusion

Methodology

Introduction

Contents

3

Introduction

One of the main problems confronting English as a

Foreign Language (EFL) learners is how to improve

their reading comprehension achievement.

(Jalilifar, 2010)

4

Introduction

Researchers have been interested in investigating

strategies that help students have better understanding

when they read.

(Al Haidari, 2006; Hollingsworth et al., 2007)

5

Introduction

Different approaches such as Cooperative learning

(CL) and Conventional Instruction (CI) have been

generally used in classroom.

(Jalilifar, 2010)

6

Introduction

There is still doubt that CL techniques such as

Student Team-Achievement Divisions ( STAD) and

Group Investigation (GI) can promote reading

comprehension.

7

Purpose of the study

-to investigate the effectiveness of STAD and GI in

improving college students’ reading comprehension

achievement

8

Research Questions

9

If so, which one is more effective?

Are there any differences in terms of reading comprehension quality between EFL learners who are instructed according to the CI and those with whom the techniques CL are utilized?

1

2

Research Questions

10

Would the use of STAD or GI yield any

differences in students’ gains in reading

comprehension?

3

Conceptual Framework

1

2

3

4 STADSTAD STADSTAD

Listen to teacher’s explanation of material

Work in mixed groups to complete activities or worksheets

Take individual quizzes

Recognize the team achievement

(Ghaithe, 2004)11

Conceptual Framework

Group Investigation enables students to work actively

and collaboratively in small groups and allows them

to take and active role in determining their own

learning goals and processes.

(Huhtala, 1994)

12

Conceptual Framework

Students form small interest groups

Plan and implement their investigation

Synthesize information to produce a final product

Participate in the class presentation

GI

13

Methodology

14

Subjects

Instruments

Procedure

Participants

Participants Participants

BB

EE

CC

DD

AA

90 female students chosen from 140 students in Dehdasht

Taken from General English course

DehdashtSouth West of Iran

College level students Level: Pre-

intermediate15

16

Instruments

Nelson Battery-section 300A(r= .75)

Standardized reading comprehension test( r= .73)

Teacher-made test 1 Teacher-made test 2

17

Procedure of the study

18

Nelson English Language Proficiency TestNelson English Language Proficiency Test

STAD group ( 30 subjects)

GI group( 30 subjects)

CI group( 30 subjects)

Procedure of the study

STAD group STAD group

GI group GI group

CI groupCI group

1. Instructed by the same teacher

2. Two month experiment(16 sessions)

3. 45 minutes reading period for each session

19

Procedure of the study

20

STAD group GI group CI group

Receive STAD instruction

Receive GI instruction

Teachers’ lecture

Individual quizzes Individual practice

Post-test

Nelson English Language Proficiency TestNelson English Language Proficiency Test

Group presentation

Methodology

21

One-way ANOVAOne-way ANOVA

to examine the difference among the participants’ score on the Nelson English Language Proficiency Test

to examine the difference among the participants’ score on the Nelson English Language Proficiency Test

to examine whether or not the observed differences among the participants’ mean on the post-test were statistically significant

to examine whether or not the observed differences among the participants’ mean on the post-test were statistically significant

Methodology

22

Post hoc Scheffe test Post hoc Scheffe test

to determine where precisely the significance lay

to determine where precisely the significance lay

Results

The groups’ mean were approximately similar on the Language Proficiency Test before the treatment

23

Results

Better performance of students who received instruction through STAD technique

24

Results

The differences among the participants’ means on the post test were statistically significant

25

Results

Significant differences was found between the experimental group A and the control group C

26

Results

27

The difference between the achievement mean of experimental group B and control group C was not statistically meaningful

Results

28

No significant difference was found comparing the achievement means of the STAD and GI groups

Conclusion

It is important for students to receive explicit

instruction in specific reading comprehension

strategies such as summaries, headings, identifying

main ideas, and self regulation skills.

29

Conclusion

Simply putting students in groups does not guarantee

positive results.

30

Reflection

31

The researcher provides sample items about the teacher- made quizzes and worksheets.

The researcher did not provide detail information about the reading materials.

Reflection

32

The Nelson English Proficiency Test seems to be old (Fowler and Coe, 1976)

The researcher did not provide sample item about the Nelson English Proficiency Test.

Reflection

33

The researcher only recruited 90 female students as participants in this study. Why?

34