跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(100.24.118.144) 您好!臺灣時間:2022/12/06 04:30
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:邵敏惠
研究生(外文):Shao,Min-huei
論文名稱:TheEffectivenessofVariousAbilityGroupingsinanEFLCooperativeLearningClassroom
指導教授:劉雪珍劉雪珍引用關係
指導教授(外文):Liu,Cecilia H.C.
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立政治大學
系所名稱:英語教學碩士在職專班
學門:教育學門
學類:普通科目教育學類
論文種類:學術論文
畢業學年度:94
語文別:英文
中文關鍵詞:合作教學分組學習
外文關鍵詞:cooperative learningability groupingheterogeneous groupinghomogeneous grouping
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:3
  • 點閱點閱:237
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:4
本研究的研究目的是提供英文老師如何在課堂上有效運用合作教
學,並提供老師在處理合作學習分組上一些適當、 有用的建議。本研究以一班台北市高職二年級學生為對象,以四種合作教學法應用在他們英文課上,並將實驗劃分為兩階段—同質學習能力小組及異質學習能力小組。藉此探討不同學習能力的學生對不同能力分組方式,有何感受及差異。此外,本論文亦深入探討合作學習在學生情意領域上的影響, 比照他們在不同分組階段後的感受及成效。
資料蒐集方式包括兩份主要問卷調查,分別於不同分組階段後實施,及學生週誌、課堂觀察、及訪談。資料分析方式為量化的描述性統計及質化內容分析法。研究結果摘要如下:
一. 高成就學生偏好同質學習能力分組,並在社會技巧及英語學習上,顯著優於其他同學。
二. 低成就學生偏好異質學習能力分組,實施合作教學後,對於學習意願、上課態度上,有明顯進步。
三. 實施合作教學後,大部分學生在英語學習、學習興趣、態度、及社會技巧、人際關係上,皆有提升。
The purpose of the study is to examine the effect of different groupings of Cooperative Learning on an English class of vocational high school students in Taiwan. Cooperative Learning is one of the teaching techniques applied in EFL classrooms, proved to be effective in promoting students’ academic achievement, affective domain as well as improving students’ interpersonal relationship. Although many EFL teachers in Taiwan have adopted cooperative learning to their teaching, not all of them paid attention to the grouping criteria. This study aims to investigate which ability grouping, heterogeneous or homogeneous, can bring most benefits to the students in their English learning and affective domain. In other words, this study tries to probe in the effectiveness of cooperative learning, by students’ perception, whether their learning attitude, achievement and social skills are enhanced through cooperative learning. And the relationship between different ability levels of the students and their preference for different groupings is also investigated.
The grouping criteria, based on the participants’ academic achievement, divide the experiment into two stages—heterogeneous grouping and homogeneous grouping. Four cooperative learning methods are applied in the class—Students Team Achievement Division (STAD), Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT), Learning Together (LT) and Jigsaw.
Forty-two students, taught by the researcher, from the 2nd year class at a vocational high school in Taipei, have participated in this study. By conducting questionnaires after the two stages of different groupings and oral interviews at the end of the experiment, the researcher collected and analyzed the data.
The findings of the study indicate that high-ability students prefer to work with the similar-ability peers, while low-ability ones prefer to work in heterogeneous groups. The participants are positive toward the effectiveness of cooperative learning in promoting their English learning, learning attitude and social skills. By running SPSS, the statistical results also show significant difference that high-achieving students are satisfied with the improvement of their social skills and English learning more than the students of other levels when they are placed in homogeneous groups.
The study not only provides EFL teachers with an effective framework of applying cooperative learning in English class, but also offers teachers appropriate and useful suggestion in adopting different groupings. Based on the above results, some pedagogical implications for English teachers and suggestions for learning strategy instructions are provided at the end of the study.
Acknowledgement iii
Table of Contents iv
List Of Tables vii
Chinese Abstract viii
English Abstract ix
CHAPTER ONE 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Motivation 1
1.2 Purpose of the Study 5
1.3 Research Questions 6
1.4 Significance of the Study 6
1.5 Definition of Terms 8
CHAPTER TWO 10
LITERATURE REVIEW 10
2.1 Theoretical Basis of Cooperative Learning 10
2.1.1 Motivational perspectives 11
2.1.2 Social cohesion perspectives 12
2.1.3 Cognitive perspective 12
2.2 The Effectiveness of Cooperative Learning 15
2.3 The Elements of Cooperative Learning 16
2.3.1 Positive Interdependence 16
2.3.2 Individual and Group Accountability 17
2.3.3 Face-to-Face Promotive Interaction 18
2.3.4 Interpersonal and Small-Group Skills 19
2.3.5 Group Processing 20
2.3.6 Cooperative Learning Groups vs. Traditional Classroom Learning Groups 21
2.4 Cooperative Learning Methods in the Study 22
2.4.1 Student Teams Achievement Division (STAD) 23
2.4.2 Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT) 23
2.4.3 Jigsaw 25
2.4.4 Learning Together (LT) 26
2.5 Ability Grouping 28
2.5.1 Heterogeneous-ability Groups 29
2.5.2 Homogeneous-ability groups 30
CHAPTER THREE 32
METHODOLOGY 32
3.1 Subjects 32
3.2 Teaching Material 34
3.3 Instrument 34
3.3.1 The Questionnaire of Students’ Personal Feelings about Cooperative Learning 35
3.3.2 Oral Interview, Classroom Observation, & Students’ Journal 35
3.4 Teaching Procedure 36
3.4.1 The First Stage 37
3.4.1.1 Heterogeneous-ability Grouping Process 37
3.4.1.2 Before the lesson—Basic CL principles instruction 39
3.4.1.3 During the Lesson 39
3.4.1.4 After the Lesson 43
3.4.2 The Second Stage 45
3.4.2.1 Homogeneous-ability Grouping Process 45
3.4.2.2 Before the lesion—Basic CL principles instruction 46
3.4.2.3 During the Lesson 46
3.4.2.4 After the Lesson 50
3.5 Data Analysis 51
CHAPTER FOUR 52
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 52
4.1 Results of Questionnaires 53
4.1.1 The Results of the Questionnaire for the First Stage 54
4.1.2 The Results of the Questionnaire for the Second Stage 66
4.2 Discussion of Research Questions 76
4.2.1 The Effects of Cooperative Learning on High/Intermediate/Low achievers 77
4.2.1.1 The Effects of Heterogeneous-ability Grouping 77
4.2.1.2 The Effects of Homogeneous-ability Grouping 80
4.2.2 The Effects of Cooperative Learning on the Subjects in Affective Domain 84
4.2.3 The Effects of Cooperative Learning on the Subjects in Academic Domain 85
CHAPTER FIVE 87
CONCLUSIONS 87
5.1 The Conclusions of the Study 87
5.2 The Implications of the Study 90
5.3 The Limitations of the Study 91
5.4 The Suggestions of the Study 94
REFERENCES 96
Appendix A 101
合作學習問卷調查(I) 101
Appendix B 104
Questionnaire (I): 104
Appendix C 106
合作學習問卷調查 (II) 106
Appendix D 109
Questionnaire (II): 109
Appendix E 111
Questions for Oral Interview 111
Appendix F 112
(The Team Observatory Sheet) 112
Appendix G 113
(The Team Scoring Sheet) 113
Appendix H 114
學生週誌 Weekly Journal 114
Appendix I 115
Basic CL principles instruction 115
Appendix J 116
Worksheet for L3—The Giant Panda 116
Appendix K 117
Tips for Expert Groups 117
Appendix L 118
Learning Together Activity for L.3 118
Appendix M 119
Worksheet for L7- Chinese Food 119







List Of Tables

Table 2.1 Traditional Classroom Learning Groups versus Cooperative Learning Groups 22
Table 3.1 Heterogeneous Grouping Process 37
Table 3.2 Homogeneous Grouping Process 45
Table 4.1 The students’ responses to CL on English learning (I) 55
Table 4.2 The students’ responses to CL on learning attitude (I) 56
Table 4.3 The students’ responses to CL on social skills (I) 58
Table 4.4 The students’ responses to CL on heterogeneous grouping (I) 60
Table 4.5 The advantages and disadvantages of a heterogeneous-ability grouping 62
Table 4.6 The advantages and disadvantages of the cooperative learning classroom. 64
Table 4.7. The Influences on the students through CL 65
Table 4.8 Suggestions for the CL class 66
Table 4.9 The students’ responses to CL on English learning (II) 67
Table 4.10 The students’ responses to CL on learning attitude (II) 68
Table 4.11 The students’ responses to CL on social skills (II) 69
Table 4.12 The students’ responses to CL on homogeneous grouping (II) 71
Table 4.13 The advantages and disadvantages of homogeneous-ability grouping 73
Table 4.14. The preferences for grouping for future CL classroom 76
Table 4.15 The Chi-Square Results with Significant Difference for the First Questionnaire 78
Table 4.16 Analysis of Variance of the Subjects’ scores on Social Skills for the 1st Questionnaire 79
Table 4.17 Multiple Comparisons on Social Skills 79
Table 4.18 The Chi-Square Results with Significant Difference for the Second Questionnaire 79
Table 4.19 Analysis of Variance of the Subjects’ scores on English Learning, Homogeneous Activity and Social Skills of the 2nd Questionnaire 79
Table 4.20 Multiple Comparisons on English Learning and Homogeneous Activity 79
Table 4.21 T-Test Results on the Comparison of the Subjects in English Learning, Learning Attitude and Social Skills 79
Abrami, P.C., Chambers, B., Poulsen, C., Simone, C.D., D’Apollonia, S., & Howden, J. (1995). Classroom Connections: Understanding and Using Cooperative Learning. U.S.A.: Harcourt Brace & Company Canada, Ltd.
Brody, C. (1998). The significance of teacher beliefs for professional development and cooperative learning. In C.M. Brody & N. Davidson (Eds.) Professional development for cooperative learning: Issues and approaches.(pp.25-62) Albany: State University of New York Press.
Chan, F.C. (2003). The Effects of Cooperative Learning Through Literature Reading on Taiwan Senior High Repeaters' Reading Comprehension : A Case Study in I-lan Senior High School. Unpublished master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, ROC.
Chang, H.M, Jasmine. (2003). The effects of various ability groupings on learning attitudes and academic achievement of cooperative learning groups. Unpublished master thesis, Tamkang University, Taipei, ROC.
Chen, L.S. (2002). The effectiveness of cooperative learning in an EFL vocational senior high classroom. Unpublished master thesis, National Chung Cheng University, Chia-yi, ROC.
Chiu Y. H. (2002). Cooperative learning in one junior high school English classroom: An action research. Unpublished master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, ROC.
Clark, D. (1999). Learning Domains or Bloom's Taxonomy. Big Dog and Little Dog proudly presents their juxtaposition of Performance, Learning, Leadership & Knowledge. Retrieved March 24, 2006, http://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/bloom.html
Clarke, R. (1997). Innovative faculty team programs: an administrator’s handbook. New York: Parker Publishing co., Inc.
Davidson, N. (2002). Cooperative and collaborative learning. In J.S. Thousand, R.A Villa, & A.I. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity collaborative learning (pp.181-195) Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Education and Manpower Bureau. (2003). 教材套使用指南. 教本資優課程教師培訓教材套: 情意教育. Retrieved March 26, 2006, http://prod1.e1.com.hk/education2/instruction.html
Farivar, S. & Webb, N. (1998). Preparing teachers and students for cooperative work: Building communication and helping skills. In C.M. Brody & N. Davidson (Eds.) Professional development for cooperative learning: Issues and approaches.(pp.25-62) Albany: State University of New York Press.
Feng, C.C, Matthew. (2001). The effectiveness of Grouping in an EFL cooperative Learning Classroom. Unpublished master thesis, Tamkang University, Taipei, ROC.
Hertz-Lazarowitz, R. (1992). Understanding interactive Behaviors: looking at peer I interactions of the classroom. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & N.Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups (pp.71-101) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hooper, S., Ward, T. J., Hannafin, M.J., & Clark, H.T. (1989). The effects of aptitude composition on achievement during small group learning, Journal of Computer Based Instruction, 16(3), 100-110.
Huitt, W. (2003). A systems model of human behavior. Educational Psychology Interactive. Valdosta, GA: Valdosta State University. Retrieved March 24, 2006, http://chiron.valdosta.edu/whuitt/materials/sysmdlo.html
Jacob, E. (1999). Cooperative learning in context. Albany: State of University of New York Press.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1993). Circle of Learning (4th ed). Edina: Interaction Book Company.
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (1993). Creative and critical thinking through academic controversy. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(1), 40-54.
Johnson, D.W., Johnson,R.T., & Holubec, E.J. (1994). Cooperative Learning in the classroom. Virginia: the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (2002). Ensuring diversity is positive. In J.S. Thousand, R.A Villa, & A.I. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity collaborative learning (pp.197-208) Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Kagan, S. (1990). Cooperative learning: Resources for teachers. CA: Resources for Teachers.
Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative Learning. San Clemente: Kagan Cooperative Learning.
Kagan, S. & Kagan, M. (1998). Staff development and the structural approach to cooperative learning. In C.M. Brody & N. Davidson (Eds.) Professional development for cooperative learning: Issues and approaches.(pp.103-121) Albany: State University of New York Press.
Lai, M. (2002). A study of cooperative learning in the EFL junior high classroom. Unpublished master thesis, National Chung Cheng University, Chia-yi, ROC.
Liang, T.L. (2002). Implementing cooperative learning in EFL teaching process and effects. Unpublished master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, ROC.
Lu, S.C. (2003). The study of cooperative learning in the EFL conversation classroom in commercial vocational high school. Unpublished master thesis, National Chengchi University, Taipei, ROC.
McCarthey, S.J. & McMahon, S. (1992). From convention to Invention: Three approaches to peer interactions during writing. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & N.Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups (pp.17-135) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McLeod, S.H. (1991). The Affective Domain and the Writing Process: Working Definitions. JAC. Retrieved March 24, 2006, http://jac.gsu.edu/jac/11.1/Articles/6.htm#top
Miller, N. & Harrington, H.J. (1992). Social categorization and inter-group acceptance. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & N.Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups (pp.71-101) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Murray F.B. (2002). Why understanding the theoretical basis of cooperative learning enhances teaching success. In J.S. Thousand, R.A Villa, & A.I. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity collaborative learning (pp.175-180) Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Prinz, S.M. (1998). The effects of various ability grouping on achievement and attitude outcomes in cooperative learning groups. University of South Carolina.
Rolheiser, C. & Stevahn L. (1998). The role of staff developers in promoting effective teacher decision-making. In C.M. Brody & N. Davidson (Eds.) Professional development for cooperative learning: Issues and approaches.(pp.63-78)) Albany: State University of New York Press.
Sapon-Shevin, M, Ayres, B.J. & Duncan, J. (2002). Cooperative learning and inclusion. In J.S. Thousand, R.A Villa, & A.I. Nevin (Eds.), Creativity collaborative learning (pp.209-221) Maryland: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50 (2), 241-271.
Sharan, S. & Sharan, Y. (1992) Expanding cooperative learning through croup investigation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Slavin, R.E. (1992). When and why does cooperative learning increase achievement? Theoretical and empirical perspectives. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups (pp.145-173) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative learning. Needham Hights: Allyn and Bacon.
Tsai, S. (1998). The effects of cooperative learning on teaching English as a foreign language to senior high school students. Unpublished master thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, ROC.
Vygotsky (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Webb, N.M. (1982). Predicting interaction and learning in cooperative small groups. Journals of educational psychology, 74,635-655
Webb, N.M. (1992). Testing a theoretical model of student interaction and learning in small groups. In R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, & N. Miller (Eds.), Interaction in cooperative groups (pp.102-119) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Weng C.L. (2003). A study of cooperative English learning in a junior high classroom. National Chung Cheng University, Chia-yi, ROC.
Yeh, Y.C. (2004). Student’s perceptions of cooperative learning methods in one senior high school EFL classroom in Taiwan. Master Thesis. Ming Chuan University.
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top