Nghiên cứu ngụy thực nghiệm nhằm đánh giá hiệu quả của phương pháp học tập cộng tác so với phương pháp học tập hợp tác trong kỹ năng đọc và viết Tiếng Anh đối với học sinh lớp 3 của một trường Tiểu học tại Hà Nội.pdf
INTRODUCTION
Rationale of the study
The present study examined how cooperative learning method is implemented in Vietnamese classrooms and how local teachers and students perceived this approach to learning An authentic form of cooperative learning has long existed in the foundations of Vietnamese education Similarly, another method named collaborative learning has been used by several teachers as a set of teaching and learning strategies promoting student collaboration in small groups in order to optimise their own and each other’s learning Meanwhile, the differences between collaborative learning and cooperative learning method may not be recognized by a huge number of English language teachers in Vietnam There are some key differences between these two learning methods With collaborative learning, students make individual progress in tandem with others Cooperative learning involves more inherent interdependence, promoting greater accountability They both use groups, both assign specific tasks, and both have the groups share and compare their procedures and conclusions in plenary class sessions The primary distinction between cooperative and collaborative is that cooperative deals exclusively with traditional knowledge while collaborative is associated with the social constructivist movement, asserting that both knowledge and authority of knowledge have changed dramatically in the last century
The students of a large class have to cover the syllabus in a limited period of time Although English language teachers usually aim to give individual attention to
2 all the students, the gap between weak and strong students still exist in most classes When it comes to students working together, the terms collaborative learning and cooperative learning are often used interchangeably Student engagement and attainment is recently a high priority for many schools While the purpose of these pedagogical methods is the same to provide students with opportunities to engage with each other in thoughtful learning, teachers must be aware of the contrasts between them to effectively use the two approaches in the classroom
It goes along with the global era; communication holds one of the most significant positions in the world Besides, there is an increasingly high relationship between reading, listening and speaking skills One important notion of developing reading skills and speaking skills is to use the language for learning as well as communication Empirically, speaking is easier than reading Speaking is being capable of speech, expressing or exchanging thoughts through using language
“Speaking is a productive aural/oral skill and it consists of producing systematic verbal utterances to convey meaning (Nunan, 2003, p.48).” (Harmer, 2001) notes down that from the communicative point of view, speaking has many different aspects including two major categories – accuracy, involving the correct use of vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation practised through controlled and guided activities; and, fluency, considered to be ‘the ability to keep going when speaking spontaneously’
In the process of learning to speak, Richard and Renandya (2002:205) stated some factors that affect learners’ oral communication ability including age or maturational constraints, sociocultural factors, and affective factors Specifically, there is a great difference of retrieving language proficiency between a child and an adult Additionally, in order to speak a language, one needs to understand how it is employed in particular social contexts Sociocultural factors include the pragmatic perspectives in which linguistic communication occurs in structured social context The last factor they mentioned, affective factors, is related to emotion, self-esteem, empathy, anxiety, attitude, and motivation Daar (2020) pointed out some obstacles
3 that students might possess when learning to speak a language They are having lack of learning interest and motivation, having lack of basic knowledge and vocabulary mastery, and having lack of self-confidence to speak These obstacles make the students fear to involve in practice with their interlocutors
In terms of improving reading ability for students, it does not only require students to correctly pronounce the vocabulary, but to understand the semantic structures of the English language and the dictionary definitions According to Kiew, S and Shah, P (2020), reading skill demands the learners not only to pronounce the words correctly, but also to comprehend the meaning of the diction used or semantic structures of the English language This is also supported by Chang et al (2018) when he agreed that reading comprehension is an active cognitive process that require an individual to interact with the reading materials
He indicated that reading comprehension is difficult for young learners in primary school as a result of the language's complexity, which includes vocabulary, grammar, and lexical form although reading skills are inculcated in their early education
Having been teaching English as a foreign language to students in the primary level for over seven years, the researcher has been able to identify and assess the challenges that hamper students in their language learning The researcher found her students also have to deal with the problems that are mentioned above Among those, the biggest issues students encounter are having lack of basic knowledge of the target language, having lack of self-confidence, and having lack of regular practice Knowing the students’ problems and the causes of problems of reading and speaking competences, the researcher has made efforts to offer the possible solution of the problems In this case, the researcher believes that cooperative and collaborative learning methods could be able to improve the students’ reading and speaking competence of the students in the primary level
Due to the above reasons, the study entitled “Quasi-experimental research to evaluate the effectiveness of collaborative learning method versus cooperative
4 learning method on English reading and speaking skills of grade 3 students in a primary school in Hanoi ” was carried out.
Aims and objectives of the study
The main objectives of the study are:
1 To assess the influence of collaborative learning method versus cooperative learning method on students’ academic achievements in reading and speaking practicing regarding to the relevant topics in the subject of English language
2 To identify the students’ preferences to some features of collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method in English language learning process.
Research hypotheses
The following hypotheses will be tested in this study:
1 There is difference between mean scores of experimental group (collaborative learning method) and control group (cooperative learning method) with regard to achievement in reading and speaking skills on pre-test and post-test
2 Students show their preferences to some particular features of collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method.
Scope of the study
This study mainly aims to evaluate the effectiveness of collaborative learning method versus cooperative learning method on enhancing reading and speaking skills of the grade 3 students in primary level at The Olympia Schools and to investigate the students’ preferences to some particular features of collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method
Related to conducting the quasi-experimental research, the subjects of research were the students in two classes in grade 3 They consisted of 24 male students and 20 female students The researcher, as an English language teacher, took these classes as the subjects of the research The researcher knew that all classes were classified based on the students’ mark randomly So, there were no exclusive classes in the course
Significance of the study
Findings of this study may prove helpful for teacher trainers to fulfill the requirements as followed
1 The study may prove helpful for teachers to improve the academic achievement of the students
2 The study may prove helpful to improve the reading and writing skills of English language of the students by using basic elements of collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method
3 This study may prove helpful to the students in terms of providing life-like situations for the learning of English and the students may feel themselves more confident
4 The study may prove helpful to bring changes in the behavior of the students They may collaborate and cooperate with each other in better ways, not only in classroom, but in daily life as well.
Method of the study
To achieve these above objectives, a study was carried out as a quasi- experimental research project, using both qualitative and quantitative approach for data collection and analysis from different sources The techniques employed to support this investigation included pre-test, post-test, survey questionnaires, and interviews In terms of qualitative method, interviews with students were used to analyze students’ perceptions of some particular features of collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method in class Regarding the quantitative method, pre-test, post-test, and survey questionnaires were applied to explore the students’ preferences to some particular features of collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method.
Structure of the thesis
This thesis consists of five main chapters:
Chapter 1 - Introduction: introduces the rationale of the study, objectives, research questions, the scope, the methods, the significance and the design of the study
Chapter 2 - Literature review: provides an overview of the theoretical background and the previous research related to the study
Chapter 3 – Research methodology: describes the setting, the participants the research methods of the study, and restate the research questions
Chapter 4 - Findings and discussion: presents a detailed description of data analysis Besides, the chapter also display some discussion and interpretations of the findings of the study, and gives suggestions for the teachers, students, and other researchers
Chapter 5 - Conclusions and suggestions: summarizes the important points of the whole thesis and gives some suggestions based on the findings of the study
Chapter 6 - Limitations of current research and recommendation for further studies This chapter is followed by the References and Appendices
LITERATURE REVIEW
Interactive learning
The term interaction is a factor which precisely shows how indicated learning takes place This way of learning puts students in a position to work at their own pace and that they receive the satisfaction In other words, interactive learning is defined as a ‘method of organization of learning with others, but the learning is understood as a process that is focused on development of a young person’
A study by Ahmed et al (2019) examined the impact of active learning strategies, such as group discussions, peer teaching, and problem-solving exercises, on student engagement and motivation in a chemistry course The results showed that students who experienced active learning strategies had higher levels of engagement, motivation, and knowledge retention compared to those who received traditional lecture-based instruction Therefore, it is indicated that interactive teaching methods have been found to be effective in promoting student engagement, motivation, and retention of knowledge Similarly, Morosan, Dawson and Whalen
(2017) also emphasized the importance of active learning techniques in creating excitement and motivation amongstudents, leading to improved learning outcomes
Additionally, interactive learning is a holistic methodology that has both online and offline components, which together make a complete educational
8 experience Interactive learning is a more hands-on, real-world process of relaying information in classrooms Passive learning relies on listening to teachers lecture or rote memorization of information, figures, or equations But with interactive learning, students are invited to participate in the conversation, through technology or through role-playing group exercises in class In addition to engaging students who are raised in a hyper-stimulated environment, interactive learning sharpens critical thinking skills, which are fundamental to the development of analytic reasoning
To summarize, interactive learning is learning that requires student participation This participation can come through class and small group discussions as well as through exploration of the interactive learning materials they are given in a digital classroom.
Collaborative learning and cooperative learning
Collaborative learning is an educational approach to teaching and learning that involves groups of students working together to solve a problem, complete a task, or create a product Collaborative learning has British roots, based on the work of English teachers exploring ways to help students respond to literature by taking a more active role in their own learning The definitions of collaborative learning are variously stated by some experts
According to Smith and MacGregor (1992), collaborative learning is a type of learning that requires students' contributions or with a little support from teachers to broaden knowledge Normally, children will work in groups of two or more, searching for learning materials, making a study plan, taking in knowledge, discussing, completing tasks, and so on Collaborative learning exercises depend mostly on students' self-study skills, cooperation between them, not teachers' explanation or representation
Furthermore, collaborative learning allows students to progress personally, while collectively working towards a common goal Peer learning, or peer
9 instruction, is a type of collaborative learning that involves students working in pairs or small groups to discuss concepts or find solutions to problems This approach actively engages learners to process and synthesize information and concepts, rather than using rote memorization of facts and figures Learners work with each other on projects, where they must collaborate as a group to understand the concepts being presented to them
As Jeff Golub (1988) points out, “Collaborative learning has as its main feature a structure that allows for student talk: students are supposed to talk with each other….and it is in this talking that much of the learning occurs.” Collaboration is a philosophy of interaction and personal lifestyle where individuals are responsible for their actions, including learning and respect the abilities and contributions of their peers Cooperation is a structure of interaction designed to facilitate the accomplishment of a specific end product or goal through people working together in groups The underlying premise of collaborative learning is based upon consensus building through cooperation by group members, in contrast to competition in which individuals best other group members
Moreover, Collaborative learning advocates distrust structure and allow students more say if forming friendship and interest groups Student talk is stressed as a means for working things out Collaborative learning covers a broad territory of approaches with wide variability in the amount of in-class or out-of-class time built around group work Collaborative activities can range from classroom discussions interspersed with short lectures, through entire class periods, to study on research teams that last a whole term or year The goals and processes of collaborative activities also vary widely
The impact of collaborative approaches on learning is consistently positive However, the size of impact varies, so it is important to get the detail right Effective collaborative learning requires much more than just sitting students together and asking them to work in a group; structured approaches with well- designed tasks lead to the greatest learning gains Although we cannot deny some
10 great benefits of collaborative learning, some students are still irresponsible for the group's work Moreover, collaborative learning is important, requiring self-study skills so that if a member in the group works inefficiently and ineffectively and does not finish the work assigned for them, all of the works will be delayed Finally, the assignment is not clear For example, leaders always have to deal with a heavy workload while other members have nothing to do As a consequence, this will put leaders under a lot of pressure and noncooperation among members (Nguyen,
Then, it can be concluded that collaborative learning produces intellectual synergy of many minds coming to bear on a problem, and the social stimulation of mutual engagement in a common endeavor This mutual exploration, meaning- making, and feedback often leads to better understanding on the part of students, and to the creation of new understandings for all of them
Cooperative learning is an instructional method in which students work in small groups to accomplish a common learning goal under the guidance of the teacher Cooperative learning has been proclaimed as an effective instructional method in promoting linguistic development of learners of English as a social language It may be contrasted with competitive learning in which students work against each other to achieve an academic goal Cooperation means working together to accomplish shared goals Within cooperative situations, individuals seek results that are beneficial for all members of a group Students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning Cooperative learning represents the most carefully structured end of the collaborative learning continuum
Defined as “the instructional use of small groups so that students work together to maximize their own and each other’s learning” (Johnson et al 1990), cooperative learning is based on the social interdependence theories of Kurt Lewin and Morton Deutsch (Deutsch, 1949; Lewin, 1935) Spencer Kagan (1989) provides an excellent definition of cooperative learning by looking at general structures
11 which can be applied to any situation The structural approach to cooperative learning is based on the creation, analysis and systematic application of structures, or content-free ways of organizing social interaction in the classroom Structures usually involve a series of steps, with proscribed behavior at each step The cooperative learning tradition tends to use quantitative methods which look at achievement: i.e., the product of learning
In cooperative learning, the development of interpersonal skills is as important as the learning itself The development of social skills in group work- learning to cooperate - is key to high quality group work Many cooperative learning tasks are put to students with both academic objectives and social skills objectives Many of the strategies involve assigning roles within each small group (such as recorder, participation encourager, summarizer) to ensure the positive interdependence of group participants and to enable students to practice different teamwork skills Built into cooperative learning work is regular “group processing,” a “debriefing” time where students reflect on how they are doing in order to learn how to become more effective in group learning settings (Johnson, Johnson and Holubec, 1990)
In the classroom, a cooperative learning lesson involves students working in small groups to accomplish a learning task The task is assigned by the teacher with clear directions Students then work on the task together with defined roles (i.e reporter, spokesperson, researcher, recorder) Teachers who are effective at evaluating the group together as one understand that each person in the group has a
“shared” responsibility Teachers with students who work in cooperative learning groups typically allow for more social interaction and can enhance students’ collaborative skills Cooperative learning groups force students to interact socially and practice collaboration Teacher lessons that include positive, active student collaboration are planned out with clear directions and expectations for students
In general, those who differentiate between cooperative and collaborative learning tend to identify cooperative learning with more teacher centered ways of
12 facilitating group activities and to identify collaborative learning with more student centered ways of facilitating group activities, despite the fact that the use of group activities connects both cooperative and collaborative learning with student centric pedagogy The underlying premise for collaborative and cooperative learning is founded in constructivist epistemology Johnson, Johnson & Smith (1991) have summarized these principles in their definition of a new paradigm of teaching Ken Bruffee (1995) identifies two causes for the differences between the two approaches He states: “First, collaborative and cooperative learning were developed originally for educating people of different ages, experience and levels of mastery of the craft of interdependence Second, when using one method or the other method, teachers tend to make different assumptions about the nature and authority of knowledge.” He contends that cooperative learning frameworks in the early grades are the most effective for teaching these “The main goal of primary school education is to help children renegotiate their membership in the local culture of family life, help them join some of the established knowledge communities available to them, and encompass the culture we share,” the author claims
Reading skills
Reading is an important language skill and a highly complicated act that everyone should learn Reading is frequently regarded as an essential form of communication in the ever-expanding world The process of identifying, interpreting, and perceiving written or printed materials is called this Since reading is the cornerstone of all academic activities, learning to read is one of the most crucial methods students may implement in the classroom If a student does not develop the requisite reading abilities, they are likely to experience academic failure Undoubtedly, a learner must spend a significant amount of time reading and understanding content in order to master any discipline (Abu-Shamla, 2009)
Reading is not solely a single skill but a combination of many skills and processes in which the readers interact with printed words and texts for content and pleasure According to Kibry (2006), through reading, one can teach writing, speaking, vocabulary items, grammar, spelling and other language aspects The fundamental purposes of reading are to help students acquire an awareness of the world and of themselves, to appreciate and pursue interests, and to solve individual and collective issues Constructing meaning from a text is the process of reading comprehension All reading strategies ultimately aim to aid the reader in understanding the text they are reading Decoding the writer's words and then applying prior knowledge to generate an approximation of the writer's message constitute reading comprehension
As reading is one of the four language skills, its teaching needs carefully selected activities, methods, and procedures Skills in reading enable learners to benefit from educational activities and to participate fully in the social and economic activities in which they take part
Beatrice (2008) clarifies that reading skills are the cognitive processes that a reader uses in making sense of a text For fluent readers, most of the reading skills are employed unconsciously and automatically When confronted with a challenging text, fluent readers apply these skills consciously and strategically in order to comprehend Zakir (2019) added that reading means looking for roots of the tree of meaning Efficient readers focus on the core of a text They don’t need to read every word to grasp the main information They know how to avoid unnecessary text and collect the main point Therefore, in teaching reading, instructors need to take into account that the best way to improve reading is by letting learners to read different texts and by teaching them various reading strategies of efficient readers So it is necessary to expose learners to the intensive and extensive reading situation
According to Prado & Escalante (2020), the indicators of reading comprehension and the dimensions of the reading process and their results have
15 shown students a critical outlook on education, especially to adopt the foreign language as a second language For this reason, the author affirms that reading comprehension is one of the basic skills that every person must acquire to understand and analyze the problem that arises in academic life, especially in the English language In general, it can be expressed that students acquire essential information for understanding the English language through reading at lower levels so that when they enter higher levels, they do not acquire the necessary skills to perceive what they are reading, and this makes it difficult to understand a text to deduce meanings, as well as words, phrases or simply a conversation in the English language The development of reading comprehension skills can be achieved primarily when a student acquires a set of decisions for fluent pronunciation, intonation, and speaking As well as decoding and interpreting messages to build and form meanings, managing to transmit the information received orally and in writing
From the definitions above, it can be concluded that reading is the process of understanding written language to get more information and develop our knowledge
2.3.2 Approaches to teaching reading skills
Reading is a competence that teachers have to actively teach since learners do not simply “pick up” reading skills There is no clear pathway for progress in learning to read unless the teacher has a plan for teaching the learners how to read Teachers need to know what is expected of learners They need to know precisely how to help learners to achieve satisfactory reading levels, and where necessary, they should ask for extra professional support (Republic of South Africa Education Department, 2008) According to Brown (2001), half a century ago, reading specialists argued that the best way to teach reading is through bottom-up methodology: teaching symbols, grapheme-phoneme correspondences, syllables, and lexical recognition first, then comprehension would derive from the sum of the parts On the other hand, researches have shown that a combination of top-down
16 and bottom-up processing, or what has come to be called “interactive reading”, is almost always a primary ingredient in successful teaching methodology because both processes are important
Gerry et al (2012) clarified that reading is one strand of literacy The reading process is complex and multi-dimensional Effective teachers have an understanding of this complexity and are able to use a range of teaching approaches that produce confident and independent readers The reading process is intricate and multifaceted Effective teachers are able to employ a variety of teaching philosophies that result in readers who are self-assured and independent because they are aware of this complexity He identified several components that need to be considered in the teaching of reading towards recognizing this complexity Among these are: the establishment of varied and rich vocabulary, development of phonological processes, the provision of a framework for teaching comprehension strategies, a need to ensure that motivation and enjoyment of reading are key aspects of the reading process, and a renewed focus on reading fluency
Scholars have written principles of teaching; for example, Harmer (2008) lists six principles of teaching reading:
1 Reading is not a passive skill: reading is an active occupation Therefore, readers should understand the meanings of words, see pictures, understand the arguments and take a position to agree or not If students do not do these things while reading, then they are only scratching the surface of the text, and there will a tendency of forgetting
2 Students need to be engaged with what they are doing: students should be engaged with the reading text This helps them to be actively interested in what they are doing and benefit much from it
3 Students should be encouraged to respond to the context of a reading text, not just to the language: the main purpose of practicing reading is to let students get the meaning and the message of the text Thus, we must give students a chance to respond to the meaning and message of texts
4 Prediction is a major factor in reading: books converse, photographs, contents, and titles give us hints of what is in the book before we read a single word Our brain begins predicting what we are going to read We build expectations and the active process of reading takes place Therefore, teachers should give hints to their students so that they can predict what is going to be read
5 Match the task to the topic: once students are given a reading text to read an appropriate task should be designed The right kind of questions and other useful activities that engage students must be ready Unnecessary and inappropriate questions could make an interesting text boring and unattractive
6 Good teacher exploits reading text to the full: any reading text is full of sentences, words, ideas, descriptions, etc It does not make sense to get students to read it and then drop it to move on to something else Good teachers integrate the reading text into interesting class sequences using the topic for discussion and further tasks, using the language for study and later activation
To sum up, the principle of teaching reading to English language learners to increase their fluency and comprehension skills is an important step in helping them become successful readers
Base on the size of the text, the purpose of reading, time allotted etc., there are three major approaches to reading:
Top-down approach : It was proposed by Goodman (1967) The reader brings his/her personal experiences and views with him/her, and those aspects largely affect the way of interpreting a text Goodman characterizes this approach as viewing reading as ‘precise, sequential identification’ This approach is precisely
18 suggested by most thinkers and researchers because of its direct relation to readers’ schemata− their personal knowledge and experiences
Bottom-up approach: It was proposed by Gough (1972) It begins with the stimulus, i.e the text, or bits of the text In the bottom-up approach, ‘the reader builds up a meaning from the black marks on the page: recognizing letters and words, working out sentence structure’ (Nuttall, 1996) When students are confused with an initial reading they use this process consciously In this approach, a reader entirely depends on the contextual meaning, and s/he does not need any background knowledge since it is text-driven
Interactive reading: Experts argue and explain that none of these approaches
Speaking skills
English is divided into four skills which are as follows: speaking, listening, reading, and writing Therefore, speaking is expressing ideas orally and has an important role in communication There are some experts who have purposed about definition of speaking
According to (Florez & Howartz, 2001), speaking is a two-way process involving a true communication of ideas, information, or feelings Speaking is obviously important as a means of communication because generally, people
19 communicate by using oral language Moreover, speaking is an interactive process constructing meaning that involves producing, receiving, and processing information (Louma, 2004) Speaking is considered a successful and effective means of communication when one can perform everything that must be involved in speaking, such as ideas, what to say, language, how to use vocabulary, grammar, and pronunciation
Similarly, Boyd (2004) mentions that speaking is an activity in our information from the speaker to listener According to Brown (1994:1), speaking is a process to collect the data of information, to process the data to be valid information, and to deliver it as good communication
Likewise, Wahyuni (2016) states that speaking is the capability to be able to fluently speak and presupposes not only the features of language but information processing ability as well She also specifies speaking as the language used bravely with little unnaturalness of pauses which is named fluency Furthermore, Harmer
(2001) also states that speaking is a spontaneously real-time act When people are talking, they will make some words at that time, and people who they are talking with will immediately reply We can conclude that speaking is a process of making some words to be understood and give a clear meaning
Nunan (as cited in Wahyuni, 2016) specifies that there are two types of spoken language as follows: (1) Monologue: it is when a speaker uses spoken language for any length of time such as speeches, lectures, readings, and others (2) Dialogue: speaking that involves two or more speakers
Speaking is the production skill that is included by two main categories: accuracy and fluency Accuracy consists of using vocabulary, grammar and pronunciation through some activities (Gower et al., 1995) According to Syakur (1987;5) there are five components of speaking: comprehension, grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation and fluency as follows
Comprehension is the way of understanding something, comprehension is also important component in speaking because in conversation with others we must
20 make them understand in our conversation Comprehension aims at the purpose to make the listeners easily receive some information from the speakers
Grammar can be described as a principle of rule which can be used to make well-formed of grammatical utterance in that language In addition, grammar can be defined that a set of rulers which let us to unite words in small language into large units Grammar is important to make sure that the students’ ability is correct in oral and written aspect
Vocabulary is necessary for speaking It can be shown that one of the key for success communicative is the power of words Vocabulary is a fundamental building of language learning Learners have to know words, meaning of the words, and how they are spelt The vocabulary becomes familiar when we use in spoken language everyday
Pronunciation is one of the important components that a good English speaker used Pronunciation includes all aspect of speech such as rhythm, phrasing, intonation, articulation more peripherally gesture, eye contact and body language
Fluency is the flow and efficiency with which communicators express their ideas Speakers do not need a lot of time to pause and think before speaking, so they can communicate readily In other words, it means that speakers should be able to talk automatically and quickly
In short, speaking skill must be acquired by both lecturers and students Speaking skill is the learners’ ability to speak, to make a dialogue, to practice in the real discussion for fluent English with a minimum of correct grammar and a range of useful vocabulary which help others to communicate with them
2.4.2 Approaches to teaching speaking skills
The successful teaching of communication skills in large classes is to modify
21 the language, context and cultural differences of the country where English is being taught Additionally, English is learnt by a large number of students across the world Most of the students are willing to enhance their fluency in order to communicate with foreigners but developing fluency in a second language is marked as a challenging task by most of the students Students might feel difficult to overcome the linguistics deficiency, in processing oral language with emotional pressure to deal with the perspective of using English for communication purposes (Kawai 2008, Gan, 2013) Along with pronunciation, another major barrier to speaking English is the inability of pupils to master the sounds and phonemes of the English language (Fraser, 2001) Other barriers to speaking English include gesturing, body language, and non-verbal communication
According to Sholihah (2016), the goal of teaching speaking skills is communicative efficiency This means that learners should be able to make themselves easily understood, using their current proficiency to the fullest They should try to avoid confusion in the message due to faulty pronunciation, grammar, or vocabulary and observe the social and cultural rules that apply in each communication situation Teaching speaking is to teach learners to: produce the English speech sounds and sound patterns, use word and sentence stress, intonation patterns and the rhythm of the second language, select appropriate words and sentences according to the proper social setting, audience, situation and subject matter, organize their thoughts in a meaningful and logical sequence, use language as a means of expressing values and judgments, use the language quickly and confidently with few unnatural pauses, which are called as fluency
One of the most important things that a teacher needs to have is creativity to be a good performing teacher and to help the learners easily understand the given materials in the classroom (Sawyer, 2004).On the other hand, instructors who don't handle speaking well will have a negative impact on how well their students perform in speaking assignments In this case, teachers will always be challenged to create a good treatment in teaching speaking Creativity is vital in creating good
Previous research
With regard to the implementation of collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method in English language learning process to improve students’ language skills, there are several researchers conducting studies on this subject
Donato (1994) finds that learners of second language can provide guided support to their peers during collaborative second language interactions and that collective scaffolding occurs, when students work together on language learning tasks Collective scaffolding may lead to linguistic development within the learners, because during peer scaffolding, learners can extend their own of second language knowledge as well as promote the linguistic development of their peers
According to Jacob and Mattson (1987), cooperative learning methods provided a way to help limited English proficient students to achieve academically and develop the English language skills necessary for successful classroom functioning The method involved small groups of two to six students in tasks that require cooperation and positive interdependence within the groups It provided opportunities for face-to-face interaction on school tasks, raised academic achievement levels, and improved inter group relations
Shafqat Ali Khan (2008) examined the effects of cooperative learning and traditional learning on the achievement in reading comprehension and achievement in writing ability of the students of class VIII in the subject of English The author discovered cooperative learning method is more effective as a teaching learning technique for overcrowded class of English at elementary level The result of research leads to a conclusion that cooperative learning method is equally useful for improving the writing and reading comprehension of low achievers, average students and high achievers Khan indicated that here are some potential dangers in
23 cooperative learning method On occasion, students who are considered to be the possible troublemakers congregate in one group The teacher may use mixed ability groups to avoid this danger The teacher should ensure equal participation of every group member in activity If activities are not properly constructed, cooperative learning method can allow some group members do all or most of the work while others remain inactive
Another research project was carried out by Fasawang (2011) which aimed to explore the effect of using collaborative learning to enhance students’ speaking achievement The study used a pre-test and post-test design It was conducted with
35 undergraduate students enrolled in a fundamental English course at Bangkok University to examine their speaking achievement on an English oral test before and after they had participated in provided instructional tasks based on collaborative learning The results demonstrated the improvement of the students speaking performance and positive feedback from the students on the use of collaborative learning activities The study provides some pedagogical implications and suggestions for further investigations
METHODOLOGY
Research hypotheses
The following hypotheses will be tested in this study:
1 There is difference between mean scores of experimental group (collaborative learning method) and control group (cooperative learning method) with regard to achievement in reading and speaking skills on pre-test and post-test
2 Students show their preferences to some particular features of collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method
In order to test the two hypotheses above, the concepts of the research context, research approach, and research design will be presented clearly in the following sections.
Research context
While it is important that children experience a variety of classroom organisational frameworks, working collaboratively provides learning opportunities that have particular advantages Children are stimulated by listening to the ideas and opinions of others, and by having the opportunity to react to them Collaborative work exposes children to the individual perceptions that others may have of a problem or a situation
In the words of Ronald Reagan, “By working together, pooling our resources and building on our strengths, we can accomplish great things” (1984) Cooperative and collaborative learning is a necessary skill building method of learning that has a positive influence on elementary school students Cooperative learning can
25 influence students in academic achievement, engagement, social skills, and emotional intelligence Collaborative and cooperative learning models have been implemented in classrooms for years Utilization of these methods have resulted in mixed reviews regarding the effectiveness of this type of learning for elementary aged children
In the world of elementary education, academic achievement is only one part of the entire equation to educating young children Emotional intelligence, social skills, and academic achievements are essential in developing children into life-long learners There are a few criticisms and downfalls to cooperative learning, and they tend to all be related to how cooperative learning is implemented in the classroom There is a certain way and method for incorporating cooperative learning and not making it a competitive style of learning by mistake Buchs et al (2021) points out that cooperative learning is best facilitated with partners, when each partner completes a complementary part of the learning goal, rather than two partners working on identical tasks at the same time The study “indicated a positive link between the summarizer’s competence and listener’s listening skills when working on complementary information and a negative link when working on identical information” (Buch et al., 2021, p.7) Each group member, or partner in this instance, needs to feel that they are a necessary part of achieving the learning goal
If they are working on the identical assignment together, then this would promote competition and result in the opposite effects of what we aim to see from cooperative learning The purpose of my research project is to evaluate effectiveness of collaborative learning method versus cooperative learning method on enhancing English reading and speaking skills of students at primary level to anticipate challenges while implementing these two learning methods in teaching and learning process
The research was conducted in the second semester of the academic year, and the schedule of the research was based on the school calendar The lesson
26 contents during the research were taken from a course of language instructions that integrates the real-world content and a wide variety of cross-curricular concepts It uses a content-based, communicative approach to learning English, with grammar and vocabulary taught and practiced in context, and multiple opportunities for authentic communication using all language skills It aims to help students develop their English communicative skills and a better understanding of themselves, one another, and the world they live in By the end of school year, students are expected to be at pre-A1 level of the CEFR As for schedule, students learn four lessons in a sequence every week during eight weeks of the semester Within this tight timetable, the workload is fairly substantial as each unit involves vocabulary, skills practice, language review and homework or self-study activities
The course book is Our World 3 book (second edition) published by National Geographic Learning The book consists of nine units:
Unit 2: My Place in the World
After this course, students will be exposed to and trained in:
• Read and understand the main ideas in reading texts of 150 - 180 words
• Read and answer detail questions in reading texts of 150 - 180 words
• Read and apply knowledge to their own life
• Produce target language with correct pronunciation
• Express their ideas using 5 – 7 sentences about familiar topics
• Roleplay different situations based on familiar topics
• Prepare and deliver presentations on familiar topics
The instructional contents for both experimental and control group were the same; however, the only difference was whether or not performance assessment in the teaching learning activities was implemented and utilized The performance assessment focused on doing, not merely knowing, and on the process or procedure used as well as the product resulting from one's performance of a task Table 1 shows the instructional contents that were taught to both groups and the performance assessment techniques that were implemented to both groups
Table 1 Instructional Contents and Performance Assessment Techniques
Instructional Contents for Both Groups Performance Assessment
• The Coolest Animals Live in Antarctica!
Short discussion Multiple-choice questions Cloze test
• Presentation about an animal you like
Story/Text Retelling Short presentation Vocab & grammar quiz Self evaluation
Short discussion Multiple-choice questions Cloze test
• Presentation about your favorite birthday food
Picture-cued Description Short discussion
Vocab & grammar quiz Self evaluation
The participants were selected from the Olympia Schools which represents population of typical private schools in Hanoi, Vienam i.e large classes, spacious rooms, learners from families with medium socioeconomic and educational backgrounds The participants aged from 8 to 9 were of mixed proficiency levels and had a comparable total average score of English in the previous semester
Group 2 (Class 3H2) Urdu medium section
(High achievers + Low achievers + Average)
Quasi-experimental research was employed in this research This is a subtype of non-experiments that attempt to mimic randomized, true experiments in rigor and experimental structure but lack random assignment (Cook & Wong, 2008; Kirk,
2009) According to Cook & Wong (2008), the pretest–posttest control group design is probably the most common research designs used within experimental and
29 quasi-experimental research In this design, Group 1 and Group 2 takes part in some types of treatment or intervention, which can consist of single or multiple training sessions The design also includes a pretest and a posttest, in which both groups participate The purpose of the pretest is to ensure the comparability of the two groups prior to the treatment, whereas the posttest allows the researchers to determine the immediate effects of the treatment on the outcome variable(s)
Above Table 2 showed that total sample was 44, which was divided into two big groups of 22 students each Group 1 had 22 students who were in class 3H1 In this group of 22 students, nine students were high achievers, six were low achievers, and seven students were average Same criteria of selection of students in class 3H2 were adopted to form Group 2 In this group of 22 students, eight students were high achievers, six were low achievers, and eight students were average Thus, two equivalent groups were formed in such a way that average score and average age of the students of two groups was almost equal
Equal conditions for both the groups were established All factors of the time of day and treatment length in time were equated The same teacher taught both the groups Both groups were taught the same materials The study lasted for eight weeks with a daily period of 45 minutes, four periods per week Group 1 (Class 3H1) was taught by using collaborative learning as an instructional technique and Group 2 (Class 3H2) was taught by using cooperative learning method techniques.
Research approach
This study was carried out in a form of a quasi-experimental research project, which is used to estimate the causal impact of an intervention on target population without random assignment
According to McBurney & White (2007) “quasi experiment is a research procedure in which the scientist must select subjects for different conditions from pre-existing groups”
Similarly, Abraham & MacDonald (2011) state, “Quasi-experimental research is similar to experimental research in that there is manipulation of an independent variable It differs from experimental research because there is no
30 control group, no random selection, no random assignment, and/or no active manipulation.”
Likewise, Broota (1992) indicated, “All such experimental situations in which the experimenter does not have full control over the assignment of experimental units randomly to the treatment conditions or the treatment cannot be manipulated are called quasi-experimental design.” In other words, we can say that in quasi-experiments we do not manipulate variables but we observe categories of subjects Quasi-experimental design is often integrated with individual case studied; the figures and results generated often reinforce the findings in a case study, and allow some sort of statistical analysis to take place
Without proper randomisation, quasi-experiment has its own disadvantages The lack of random assignment in the quasi-experimental design method may allow studies to be more feasible, but this also poses a number of challenges for the investigator in terms of internal validity
There are a number of questions that researchers need to consider when deciding upon an experimental design to ensure that the internal and external validity of the study are optimized These include reflecting on the type of variables studied, the number of independent variables investigated, the absence or presence of pretesting, the number of treatment sessions required, and the size and nature of the sample to be selected Each design option has its pros and cons, thus researchers inevitably need to make compromises in the decision-making process (Gass & Mackey, 2016)
In this study, the pre-test post-test equivalent group design was used
(adopted from Watenable, Hare and Lomax, 1984) This design with reference to Best, Kahn (1986, p.127) may be represented as follows
E = Exposure of a group to an experimental (treatment) variable
C = Exposure of a group to a control condition
The experimental group was given treatment under the dynamics of collaborative learning while the control group studied the same material with cooperative learning method The treatment continued in four days cycle for 8 weeks The research procedure of treatment for each group is clarified as follows
Implementation of collaborative learning in Group 1 (Class 3H1)
The Collaborative Learning Model described by Reid et al (1989) was implemented in this group There are five phases for designing instruction for collaborative learning: engagement, exploration, transformation, presentation, and reflection
The design of lesson plans provided the students with collaborative activities/tasks that are designed to ensure group activities and ownerships
In this phase, the students worked on the initial exploration of ideas and information Some inputs were given and the rest was left to the resourcefulness of the students Reflection worksheets that contained questions modified from the KWHLS framework were used This framework which was developed by Reid, Forrestal and Cook (1989) helped the students answer the questions “How will I learn it and work with others?” and “How will I share the information I have learned?” This aimed to help to ensure that every student pursues goals that are
32 individually beneficial and yet congruent with the group’s common goals in learning activities
• W: What do I want to learn?
• H: How will I learn it and work with others to attain mutual goals?
• S: How have I shared or will share when I learn from others?
In this phase, the students and their groups engaged in activities to transform information by organising, clarifying, elaborating or synthesising learning concepts
It was highlighted by the teacher at this stage of learning that tasks entailed discussion and contribution from all group members
In this phase, the students were required to prepare presentations of their work They received feedback from peers or expert groups
The students analysed what they have learned, identified their strengths and weaknesses in the learning processes they have gone through, and offered constructive ideas on how their learning can be improved The reflection was done both individually and collaboratively Examples of statements are as follows:
• I think I contributed to the group’s work quality by…
• Something that would help us work better next time is …
• One thing that was not useful to our group was …
• Some ways in which the thinking of the group could have been better are …
Implementation of cooperative learning in Group 2 (Class 3H2)
A technique Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) of Cooperative learning method was used Slavin (1995: 71) states that STAD is one of the simplest of all cooperative learning methods, and is a good model to begin with for teachers
33 who are new to the cooperative approach In the cooperative learning techniques, students are assigned to four or five members in group STAD is a cooperative learning method which emphasizes students mastering the materials through group learning, and the group has responsibility for their members In STAD, the teacher presents the contents or skills in a large group activities in the regular manner, such as direct instruction and modelling, while students are provided with learning materials that they use in groups to master the contents There are four major components according to Slavin (1995: 71- 73) which are classroom presentation, team study, quiz, and team recognition The activities during the treatment were observed as follows
Material was initially introduced in a class presentation This was direct instruction or a lecture – discussion conducted by the teacher
Teacher-made worksheets or textbook materials were distributed among students in their teams in order that students could master the materials Students discussed problems together in teams They helped each other, compared answers, and corrected misconceptions if teammates made mistakes The team provided the peer support for academic performance
After one period of teacher presentation and one period of team practice, the students took individual quizzes Students were not permitted to help one another during the quizzes Thus, every student was individually responsible for knowing the materials
Teacher figured individual improvement scores and team scores and announced the excellent, good teams and awarded signs Team scores were announced in the first period after the quiz
Data collection instruments
The objectives of this study are to assess the influence of collaborative learning method versus cooperative learning method on the students’ academic achievements in reading and speaking skills and to investigate the students’ preferences to some features of collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method Hence, three types of instruments for collecting the relevant data were employed:
Pretest and posttests created by the teacher were used to gather the data In the beginning, pretest was conducted while at the end of the treatment, posttest was administrated to assess the achievement scores of both groups
During the experiment two different treatment patterns were applied Lesson plans of both groups addressed the same instructional objectives The experiment continued for two months Soon after the treatment was over, posttest was administered to measure the achievement of the sample subjects
The second research tool for data collection were two survey questionnaires These questionnaires were designed to explore the students’ preferences to some features of collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method Each questionnaire includes fifteen statements which aim to let students identify the characteristics of collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method that they prefer when learning in their areas of strength and passion
After the survey questionnaires were conducted, there was an informal conversation between the teacher and some random students to obtain more accurate data from students about what they performed in the survey questionnaires
This step helped the teacher collect more accurate and truthful information from the students
Although the students’ points of view and perspectives are meaningful to the research, their assessment on the features of collaborative learning and cooperative learning activities may not be in high level of validity and reliability since they have no pedagogical knowledge As a result, the teacher needed to have an objective observation throughout the research project in order to ensure the validity and reliability of the research.
Data collection procedures
The course lasted in eight weeks in the second semester of the academic year and the reading and speaking class met four times a week for forty-five minutes Throughout the semester, the students had to complete unit quizzes to consolidate the contents covered
During the reading course, students were required to practice some reading comprehension strategies such as questioning, identifying the main idea, and summarizing After being instructed by the teacher and being set in groups, the students were required to complete reading comprehension tasks in group and individually Then, students received feedbacks from their peers and teacher to improve their reading skills
With the same pattern, the speaking course required students to practice presenting and using correct tense when speaking Group activities were given in both groups in order that students could be able to achieve the speaking objectives of the semester Regular feedback from their peers and teachers was an essential tool in their learning path
After seven weeks, students had one week to review all the contents they had learnt and to be ready for the post-test
The process of learning is depicted in the following diagram
Next, the survey questionnaires were handed to students to identify students’ preferences to some particular features of collaborative and cooperative method
They were expected to answer all questions truthfully because there were no right or wrong answers to any of the questions Moreover, the students were not required to write their names on the questionnaires to make sure that all of the students would answer confidently
Finally, an interview in a form of informal talks between teacher and participants was carried out to obtain more accurate data from students about what they perceive features of collaborative method and cooperative method.
Data analysis procedures
The descriptive and inferential statistics were employed to analyze the difference in achievement scores The descriptive statistics analyzed the pretest and posttest based on the mean, standard deviation and percentage whereas the inferential statistics analyzed the difference in the mean achievement scores of the performance in the pretests and posttests In this regard an independent sample t-test and one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to see the difference between the mean scores of experimental and control group on pretest and posttest achievement scores at 0.005 level of significance
The data collected through the questionnaires was quantitative data As a result, they were processed as statistics The student responses were manually calculated by the computer package SPSS (Statistical Package Social Sciences)
Recieve group feedback and peer feedback
The data collected through the questionnaire are quantitative data As a result, they were processed as statistics, the student responses were calculated by the computer package SPSS (Statistical Package Social Sciences)
For 15 statements in each question used to investigate students’ preferences to some features of collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method, the 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied) was used The mean score for each item was calculated The students had positive attitudes when the mean score was higher than 3 (the neutral point); negative attitudes when it was lower than 3 and uncertainty when it was around 3
The data collected from interviews was qualitative data, consequently, the researcher had to identify themes and patterns of meanings across a dataset in relation to the research questions
As cited by Braun & Clarke (2013), Thematic analysis was first developed by Gerald Holton in 1970s and has recently been accepted as a “distinctive method with a clearly outlined set of procedures in social science”, can be used to analyze almost any kind of qualitative data such as interviews
According to Braun and Clarke (2013), this method involves seven steps:
After reading and being familiar with all the transcriptions, the research had to code the data to find out the themes Some examples have been given in the table below:
Researcher: Do think teachers should always be present in class? Why/Why not?
Student 1: “Yes, I think teachers should always be in class because class is usually noisy and messy when teachers are not there This makes me angry and stressful since I cannot focus on my work.”
Student 2: I think teachers do not need to attend class all the time, but they should be in class in maybe half of class time to observe and control class.”
Student 3: “I like to work with my teammates without the presence of teachers because we feel that we have more freedom to do anything we want to such as moving around or talking with our friends.”
After coding, reviewing, defining, naming, finally, the research is able to conclude the results of the interview questions.
Chapter summary
This chapter describes detailed background of the study including the college, the course, and the participants Furthermore, the chapter provides a clear representation of what quasi-experimental research is as well as the stages in the process of carrying out this quasi-experimenta research project Besides, with the data collected from the research project, survey questionnaire, and interviews are going to be used as the data collection instruments Finally, the chapter concludes with how data is analyzed in order to examine the research hypotheses
FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
The influence of collaborative learning method versus cooperative learning method
The tables below show the comparison between the two groups In these tables:
SD = standard deviation t-value = difference of means
The level of significance is 0.005 (L = 0.005)
4.1.1 The influence of collaborative learning method versus cooperative learning method on students’ academic achievements in reading skill
This part deals with the results of pre-tests and post-tests in both groups in reading skill which have been presented as under:
• Table 3 presents the results of Group 1 and Group 2 on pretest
• Table 4 presents the results of Group 1 with regard to achievement in reading on pretest and posttest
• Table 5 presents the results of Group 2 with regard to achievement in reading on pretest and posttest
Table 3: Difference between mean scores of Group 1 and Group 2 in reading skill on pretest
Table 3 indicates the mean score on pre-test of Group 1 in reading was 8.35 and that of the Group 2 was 8.34 The difference between the two means was not significant at 0.005 level Hence, both the groups test results were found to be almost equal on pretest
Table 4 and 5 deal with results of pretest and posttest of both groups respectively
Ho1: There is no difference between the mean scores of Group 1 on pretest and posttest
Ha: There is difference between the mean scores of Group 1 on pretest and posttest
Table 4: Difference between mean scores of Group 1 with regard to achievement in reading on pretest and posttest
Table 4 shows that the absolute value of t (-3.13) was greater than table value
(0.11) at 0.005 level Hence, Ho1 was rejected and Ha was accepted It means that
41 there was difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of Group 1 after being treated by collaborative learning method To be more specific, Chart 1 below illustrated the changes in students’ scores on pretest and posttest of Group 1 after the treatment
Chart 2 Difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest in reading skill in
Ho2: There is no difference between the mean scores of Group 2 on pretest and posttest
Ha: There is difference between the mean scores of Group 2 on pretest and posttest
Table 5: Difference between mean scores of Group 2 with regard to achievement in reading on pretest and posttest
The results of t-test revealed that the absolute value of t (-1.88) was greater than table value (0.11) at 0.005 significance of level Hence, Ho2 was rejected and
Ha was accepted It means that there was difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of Group 2 after being treated by cooperative learning method Chart 2 below demonstrated specifically the changes in scores of Group 2 in achievement of reading
Chart 3 Difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of reading skill in
In conclusion, it can be seen from the results that there is difference between mean scores of Group 1 (collaborative learning method) and Group 2 (cooperative learning method) with regard to achievement in reading skill on pre-test and post- test Specifically, the mean scores of Group 1 increased by 0.95 while that of Group
2 raised 0.6 It revealed that there is difference in term of achievement in reading skill in both groups when adopting collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method In this study, students from collaborative learning group seemed to outperform those from cooperative learning group in developing students' reading skills
4.1.2 The influence of collaborative learning method versus cooperative learning method on students’ academic achievements in speaking skill
This part deals with the results of pretests and posttests in speaking in both groups which have been presented as under:
• Table 6 presents the results of Group 1 and Group 2 on pre-test
• Table 7 presents the results of Group 1 with regard to achievement in speaking on pretest and posttest
• Table 8 presents the results of Group 2 with regard to achievement in speaking on pretest and posttest
Table 6: Significance of difference between mean scores of Group 1 and Group 2 in speaking on pretest
Table 6 indicates that the mean score of Group 1 in reading was 7.95 and that of the
Group 2 was 7.93 on pretest The difference between the two means was not significant at 0.005 level Hence, both the groups were found to be almost balanced on pretest
Table 7 and 8 deal with results of pretest and posttest of Group 1 and Group 2 respectively
Ho3: There is no difference between the mean scores of Group 1 on pretest and posttest
Ha: There is difference between the mean scores of Group 1 on pretest and posttest
Table 7: Significance of difference between mean scores of Group 1 with regard to achievement in speaking on pretest and posttest
The results of t-test revealed that the absolute value of t (-2.58) was greater than table value (0.11) at 0.005 significance of level Hence, Ho3 was rejected and
Ha was accepted It means that there was difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of Group 1 after being treated by collaborative learning method
Specifically, Chart 3 below illustrated the changes in scores of students in pretest and posttest in Group 1 after the treatment
Chart 4 Difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of speaking skill in Group 1
Ho4: There is no difference between the mean scores of Group 2 on pretest and posttest
Ha: There is difference between the mean scores of Group 2 on pretest and posttest
Table 8: Significance of difference between mean scores of Group 2 with regard to achievement in speaking on pretest and posttest
The results of t-test revealed that the absolute value of t (-4.60) was greater than table value (0.11) at 0.005 significance of level Hence, Ho4 was rejected and
Ha was accepted It means that there was difference between mean scores on pretest
46 and posttest of Group 2 after being treated by cooperative learning method Chart 4 below revealed specifically the enhancement in scores of reading in Group 2
Chart 5 Difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of speaking skill in Group 2
To sum up, the results from the caculated data confirmed that there is difference between mean scores of Group 1 (collaborative learning method) and Group 2 (cooperative learning method) with regard to achievement in speaking skill
The students’ preferences to some particular features of collaborative and
4.2 The students’ preferences to some particular features of collaborative and cooperative learning method
In order to assess the preferences of students about some features of collaborative and cooperative learning method, survey questionnaires and interviews were adopted The data from responses in the questionnaires and the interviews were analyzed and presented below
The students were instructed to mark the most satisfied choices in the statements for their preferences which were scaled from ① to ⑤ The maximum score for one statement is ⑤, so one statement delivered to 22 students in one group could be able to reach a score of 110 The statements (2) and (9) in both questionnaires are similar which means the two learning methods share some common features in terms of students’ awareness of teamwork values and positive behaviors when working with others The other statements will be different in both groups which give the description about the students’ preferences to some features that are about teacher’s role and learner’s role in class
4.2.1 The students’ preferences to some particular features of collaborative leaning method in Group 1
Table 9 below revealed the total scores given by students for each statement in the survey questionnaire
Table 9 Students’ marking for their preferences to some features of collaborative learning method in Group 1
1 The learners are grouped or paired together, to achieve a common goal 98
2 The learners are responsible for each other’s learning, along with their own learning 92
3 The learners have freedom to design learning activities 107
4 The learners discuss to find out solutions for learning tasks 89
5 Roles and responsibilities among learners are negotiated and agreed 108
6 Problems are solved by mutual cooperation, involvement, and combined effort of the learners 94
7 The learners share source material among 89
8 The learners develop their understanding and knowledge through the process of collaborating with peers
9 The learners respect the ability and contribution of the fellow 105
10 Lessons happen in informal and flexible ways 108
11 Lessons do not need to be in fixed structure 100
12 The learners actively monitor the progress of their group activities 94
13 The teacher may not be present for instructing or monitoring 83
14 The learners set their own evaluation criteria for group's products 98
15 The learners are in charge of assessing their learning products and monitoring the entire learning process of the group
Particularly, the following generalizations can be made about the results presented in Table 9 First of all, the students had the highest total score (108) for the statements 5 and 10, “Roles and responsibilities among learners are negotiated and agreed.” and “Lessons happen in informal and flexible ways.” It means that most of students were very satisfied when they were given opportunity to choose their own course of action without the intervention of the teacher in classroom Presumably, they desired to have a less structured classroom where the students had more freedom to make choice of what they wanted to achieve in class The students' strong preference for statement 5 suggests that they would have rather negotiated and come to an agreement on roles and duties among themselves than have the teacher assign them
Additionally, the second highest score for this part is statement 7, “The learners have freedom to design learning activities.” (total score = 107) This finding reveals that many students already recognized they could become independent and self-directed learners That means they would prefer to take more responsible for their learning when they had to create their own learning activities The next lower mean score was for statement 9, “The learners respect the ability and contribution of the fellow.” (total score = 105) This reveals a great number of students really appreciated the contribution of each member in their team when working in collaboration context
Meanwhile, the statement that had the lowest score (83) was “The teacher may not be present for instructing or monitoring.” To this result, there were one student who chose scale 2 and five students who chose scale 3 for the statement The number for response options “Dissatisfied” and “Neutral” accounts approximately for 27% of experimental group The rest of group that rated for response options “Satisfied” and “Very Satisfied” accounts for 73% This result reflects a fact that most students were still satisfied with the absence of the teacher during classes However, there is a minor number of students who voted for the teacher’s presence in class This required the researcher to conduct interviews at later stage to invest more on students’ perceptions about this feature of collaborative learning The interviews were carried out in form of informal talks between the teacher and the students Here are some responses from the participants:
Interview question 1: Do you think teachers should always be present in class? Why/Why not?
First of all, student M who chose option 2 “Dissatisfied” for the statement
“The teacher may not be present for instructing or monitoring.” expressed “Yes, I think teachers should always be in class because class is usually noisy and messy when teachers are not there This makes me angry and stressful since I cannot focus on my work.”
Another response from student Q who voted option 3 “Neutral” for this statement was “I think teachers do not need to attend class all the time, but they should be in class in maybe half of class time to observe and control class.”
On the contrary to the opinions of two students above, student H who voted for option 5 “Very Satisfied” said “I like to work with my teammates without the presence of teachers because we feel that we have more freedom to do things we want to such as moving around or free talking.”
Another interview question was conducted to aim at the statements that received the highest scores The statements were about students’ agency in terms of facilitating classroom by themselves Here are some responses from the participants:
Interview question 2: What do you think are the roles and responsibilities of the teachers and the learners in classroom?
The interview received some responses from the students, who expressed some common opinions about the features of orientation in classroom using collaborative method
With student T who rated 5 points for the statement “Roles and responsibilities among learners are negotiated and agreed.”, she said that “I really like to choose my own tasks rather than being assigned by my teachers Sometimes I and my teammates feel a bit hard to divide the tasks, but we try to deal with it immediately.”
Similar to student T, student C said “I feel it is interesting if I am able to choose the tasks that I am good at My friends can do other tasks if they are good at them.”
In addition, student N emphasized the roles of teachers in class “Teachers should only help us when we really need For examples, teachers can explain new things or guide us to do some difficult tasks, then we can try ourselves.”
From the data analyzed above, it could be concluded that most of students in Group 1 showed their satisfaction with the absence of teachers in class due to the
51 eagerness to have students’ own freedom of communicating with peers and facilitating activities in class Students also showed positive attitudes towards the ability and contribution of the fellow when collaboratively working with each other
A few students demonstrated their hesitation to the absence of teachers due to the concerns to class management regarding to students’ behaviors About the orientation of the lessons, they revealed that it should be student-oriented rather than teacher-oriented The students would like to hold the active role in class for designing learning activities and collaborating to solve the learning tasks Consequently, they could be able to develop their understanding and knowledge through the process of collaborating with peers
4.2.2 The students’ preferences to some particular features of cooperative leaning method in Group 2
Table 10 below demonstrated the total scores given by students for each statement in the survey questionnaire
Table 10 Students’ marking for their preferences to some features of cooperative learning method in Group 2
1 The learners work in small teams to achieve a shared learning goal, under the guidance of the teacher
2 The learners are responsible for each other’s learning, along with their own learning 91
3 The teacher designs learning activities for the learners 71
4 The teacher guides learners on how to solve learning tasks 92
5 The teacher assigns learning tasks to each learner 48
6 Various aspects of the problem are determined, and learners are given the responsibility of finding a 91
52 solution to different aspects which is then integrated to solve the problem
7 The source material is supplied to the learners by the teacher 94
8 The learners develop their understanding and knowledge through the process of doing their own tasks
9 The learners respect the ability and contribution of the fellow 104
10 Lessons happen in formal and directive ways 63
11 Lessons are in fixed structure 55
12 The teacher monitors the progress of the learners’ activities 76
13 The teacher is always present for instructing or monitoring 66
14 The teacher sets the evaluation criteria for learners’ products 73
15 The teacher is in charge of assessing learners’ learning products and monitoring the entire learning process of the groups
As can be seen from Table 10, the following generalizations can be made about the results To start with, the students had the highest total score (104) for the statement 9 “The learners respect the ability and contribution of the fellow.” It implies that most of students had the positive attitudes towards the contribution of the fellow They respected the abilities and efforts of each member in group They also understood they could develop their understanding and knowledge through the process of doing their own tasks as the result in the statement 9 (total score = 97) Another statement that scored 94 points is about sharing source material in class Students showed their preferences for receiving source material from teachers
Chapter summary
The analysis of the results collected from pre-tests, post-tests, the questionnaires, and interviews had the following major findings
Firstly, according to the data from the student’scores in pre-test and post-test, it is concluded that cooperative learning method seemed to exceed collaborative learning method in enhancing students' speaking skills whereas collaborative learning method seemed to outperform cooperative learning method in terms of improving student’s reading skill
Additionally, the findings from the most of the students in both groups showed their preferences with the absence of teachers in class in order that students have their own freedom of communicating with peers and facilitating activities in class Students in both groups also showed positive attitudes towards the ability and contribution of the fellow when collaboratively working with each other A minor number of students demonstrated their hesitation to the absence of teachers in class because they still want to have the management of teachers regarding to students’ behaviors Moreover, in terms of lesson orientation, the findings revealed that it should be student-oriented rather than teacher-oriented The students would like to hold the active role in class for designing learning activities and collaborating to solve the learning tasks
In addition, the biggest difficulty encountered by the students when working in collaborative and cooperative classroom is that their self-management in terms of behaviors and activeness in task completion
On the basis of these findings, suggestions will be made and presented in the next chapter
CONCLUSION
Recapitulation
The aim of this study was to explore the impact of using collaborative learning method versus cooperative learning method on students’ academic achievements in reading and speaking practicing regarding to the relevant topics in the subject of English language In connection with this aim, two research questions were inquired
To answer these two questions, the data was obtained through questionnaire, students’ pretests and posttests, and interview The results of the survey questionnaires, students’ pretests and posttests and interview confirmed that there is difference in term of achievement in speaking skill in both groups when adopting collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method In which, cooperative learning method seemed to exceed collaborative learning method in enhancing students' speaking skills whereas collaborative learning method seemed to outperform cooperative learning method in term of improving student’s reading skill
First and foremost, collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method have brought some positive improvement in students’ achievement of reading and speaking skills It is observed that changes in terms of fluency, accuracy and complexity were favorable signals These two approaches support improved teacher-student interactions, foster more cooperative learning among classmates, and boost students' motivation to study and self-assurance in their learning process
Second, students in both groups expressed a comparable view of the roles that teachers and students should play in the classroom when it came to expressing
56 preferences for specific aspects of the cooperative and collaborative learning methods
Thirdly, students also encountered several difficulties, the biggest one, was self-managing because students had to raise their activeness in participating in group work so that this model of learning can work effectively.
Suggestions
5.2.1 Some suggestions from students’ attitudes
The suggestion is to encourage students and help them overcome their laziness, procrastination, and lack of determination is pointing out their improvement over time With every opportunity, encourage the students that they are making progress in their language learning and remind them the areas in which teachers see progress and improvement For areas in which a student struggles, try to portray a picture of what success will look like Encouraging the students to visualize their success will aid them in accomplishing their goals they set before (Birgin & Baki, 2007)
In addition, making rules in class is also effective It is likely that students will work harder if they know that they will get a reward for their efforts or the negative consequences if they break the rules It may be quite stressful but it is really helpful with some students who are too lazy or have no effort in their learning process It is important to make them understand that their success is completely dependent upon themselves
Finally, a deadline for every learning task should be made before any lesson Because without the idea of a deadline, many students would never have the self- motivation that is required to do their work (Caner, 2010) From the start of class, the students must know how much time they have This will get them to engage themselves in the learning process without delaying or laziness Hopefully, these recommendations can help to improve students’ consciousness of self-management as well as help them overcome their difficulties in reality
5.2.1 Some suggestions from teachers’ attitudes
Regarding the fact that a large number of students were still uncertain about
57 some strategies for effective group process, teachers should teach students how to work in a group The first step in the process is to establish ground rules and norms for interaction These guidelines must be enforced by teachers in order for group work to be effective Ground rules should encourage positive collaborative behaviors among all students An effective technique for teaching students appropriate behaviors in a small group is to have students take an active role in identifying what an appropriate behavior actually looks like
Additionally, in order to help students feel more engaged in collaborative and cooperative learning, teachers should invest deeply on students’ strengths and weaknesses in order that teachers can help consult students with workload dividing Students should be given some tips on how to make sure that each member of their team is doing the appropriate amount of work regarding to their strengths and weaknesses
Furthermore, teachers should foster a classroom culture characterized by student ownership of learning and investment in their own success Greater agency might lead to more engaged, confident, and capable students One strategy to increase student agency is to provide them a choice in how they demonstrate their knowledge and how they are evaluated Teachers should manage the time they take the control in class when it is not necessary Students might feel uncomfortable when being observed or monitored by teachers all the time This might affect students’ motivation in class as well as the effectiveness of the lessons
5.3 Limitations of current research and recommendation for further studies
Considering the findings of current research, some limitations and recommendations for further studies are presented in this section
The number of participants is quite small, only forty-four students in an EFL setting at this primary school The research was conducted at this scale mainly due to its academic nature, limited time and other resource constraints Therefore, the findings of the study can be an example for those who are interested in adopting collaborative learning and cooperative learning method in classroom, but this research cannot be generalized for all levels and all EFL learners Further research can be
58 done with a large number of participants and at different levels to collect more information to draw the best conclusion
Another limitation of the research is the objectivity of the pretest and posttest Since the reseacher designed pretest and posttest without consultation from other colleagues, the tests were subjective The researcher should deliver the submitted portfolios to at least three other teachers to evaluate the student’s products This can gurantee the reliability of the final score of the student’s work
In the light of findings and conclusions of the study, following recommendations were made
1 Reading and speaking skills of the students can be improved by using basic elements of cooperative learning i.e positive interdependence, equal participation, individual accountability, simultaneous interaction, small group skills and group processing
2 This study just looked at pupils' accomplishments in reading comprehension and English writing skills More research can be done to find out how beneficial cooperative learning is for other factors like academic motivation for various courses, attitude toward subjects, self-esteem, peer relationships, and social skills If we look at the relative efficacy of various cooperative learning strategies, studies on cooperative learning approaches offer a field of study
3 From the observation of the researcher, a number of students are lack of skills when working in group Therefore, further studies can be done with the purpose of identifying more strategies for effective group process
4 Further study can be done in the form of action research to investigate the impact of cooperative and collaborative learning strategies on student engagement Additionally, further studies should be carried in longer period of time and with extra requirements for students
Abraham, I and MacDonald, K (2011) Encyclopedia Of Nursing Research: Quasi-
Experimental Research Springer Publishing Company
Ahmed, R., Usman, M., & Khan, N (2019) Impact of active learning strategies on student engagement and motivation in chemistry: Evidence from Pakistan Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 56(2), 240-251
Beatrice, S (2008) Teaching reading in a second language Pearson Education, Inc Bright, J A., & G P McGregor (1970) Teaching English as a Second Language
Broota, K D (1992) Experimental design in behavioural research Wiley eastern limited
Brown, H D (2001) Teaching by Principles: An Interactive Approach to Language
Brown, H D (2004) Language Assessment: Principles and Classroom Practices
Bruffee, K., (1995) Sharing our toys- Cooperative learning versus collaborative learning Change, Jan/Feb, 1995 pp12-18
Cook, T., & Wong, V (2008) Better quasi-experimental practice In P Alasuutari,
L Bickman, & J Brannen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social research methods (pp 134–164) London: Sage
Chang, K L et al (2018) Relooking at the ESL Reading Comprehension
Assessment for Malaysian Primary Schools English Language Teaching, 11,
Daar, G F (2020) Problem of English language learning in context Edisi Pertama-
Florez, M A., & Howartz (2001) Improving Adult English Language Learners'
Speaking Skills (ERICDocument Reproduction Service No ED: 435204) Fraser, H (2001) Teaching pronunciation: a guide for teachers of English as a second language.Melbourne
Gan, Z (2013) Understanding English speaking difficulties: An investigation of
60 two Chinesepopulations Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 34(3), 231-248
Gerry, S., Aine, C., Anne, M., & Peter, A (2012) Oral language in early childhood and primary education (3–8 years) National Council for Curriculum and Assessment https://www.erc.ie/documents/oral_language_in_early_childhood_and_prima ry_education_3-8_years_.pdf
Golub, J (Ed) (1988) Focus on Collaborative Learning Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English
Goodman, K S (1967) Reading a psychological guessing game pp 230-40
Gough, P B (1972) One Second of Reading pp 223-40
Gower, R., Phillips, D., & Walters, S (1995) Teaching practice handbook UK:
Harmer, J (2001) The Practice of English Language Teaching Harlow: Pearson Johnson, D W., Johnson, R T., Smith, K.A., (1998), Change, July/August p27-35 Johnson, David W., R Johnson, and E Holubec Circles of Learning: Coopera-tion in the Classroom Edina, MN: Interaction Book Company, 1990 Kagan, S., Educational Leadership (Dec/Jan 1989/1990)
Kawai, Y (2008) ‘‘Speaking and Good Language Learners.’’ In Lessons from
Good Language Learners, edited by C Griffiths, 218_230 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Kadhom, F (2020) “Collaborative Learning” Research Gate https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340550128_Collaborative_Learnin g/references
Kiew, S and Shah, P (2020) Factors Affecting Reading Comprehension among
Malaysian ESL Elementary Learners Creative Education, 11, 2639-2659 Kirk, R (2009) Experimental design In R E Millsap & A Maydeu-Olivares
(Eds.), The Sage hand-book of quantitative methods in psychology (pp 23–
Khan, S A (2008) An Experimental Study to Evaluate the Effectiveness of
Cooperative Learning Versus Traditional Learning Method
Kibry, J (2006) Reading Comprehension, What have we learned about reading comprehension? Faculty of Education: Queen's University
Louma, S (2004) Assessing Speaking Cambridge University Press
McBurney D.H & Whitle T.L (2007), Research Methods, 7, New Delhi, Thomson
Morosan, C., Dawson, M., & Whalen, E A (2017) Using active learning activities to increasestudent outcomes in an information technology course Journal of Hospitality & Tourism Education,29(4), 147-157
Nunan, D (2003) Practical English Language Teaching Boston: McGraw Hill Nuttall, C (1996) Teaching Reading Skills in a Foreign Language Heinemann,
Panitz, Theodore (1996) Collaborative versus Cooperative Learning: A
Comparison of the Two Concepts Which Will Help Us Understand the Underlying Nature of Interactive Learning
Prado, D & Escalante, M (2020) Strategies for learning and understanding texts writtenin English Valdivian research vol 14 no 3 , 8
Reid, J., Forrestal, P., & Cook, J (1989) Small group learning in the classroom
Richards, J C., & Renandya, W A (2002) Methodology in Language Teaching:
An Anthology of Current Practice Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Rockwood, R., (1995) National Teaching and Learning Forum vol 4 #6, part 1 Sholihah M (2016) Teacher, & Faculty, E Improving Students ’ Speaking Skills Through Cocktail Party Technique ( A Classroom Action Research of the Second Year Students of Smp Negeri 1 Ampel in 2015 / 2016 Academic year)
Slavin, R.E (1995) Cooperative learning: theory, research, and practice, second edition Boston, Allyn and Bacon
Smith, B L., & MacGregor, J T (1992) What is collaborative learning
Van Dijk, T.A & Kintsch, W (1983) Strategies of discourse comprehension New
Syakur A (1987) Language testing andevaluation Surakarta: Sebeles Maret
Wahyuni, A D (2016) The Effectiveness Of Short Movie in Teaching Speaking to eight grade students of SMP N 3 Kalimanah, Purbalingga in the academic year of 2015/2016 FKIP UMP, 2016 6 6 - 21
Zakir, H (2019) Tips for improving your reading skill Tips for Learning English
Tune Your English https://tuneyourenglish.com/tips-for-learning- english/tipsfor-improving-your-reading-skill/
APPENDICES APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE Instruction: Tick in the number that best describes the level of your preference
Dislike Neutral Like Totally like
1 The learners are grouped or paired together, to achieve a common goal
2 The learners are responsible for each other’s learning, along with their own learning
3 The learners have freedom to design learning activities
4 The learners discuss to find out solutions for learning tasks
5 Roles and responsibilities among learners are negotiated and agreed
6 Problems are solved by mutual cooperation, involvement, and combined effort of the learners
7 The learners share source material among themselves
8 The learners develop their understanding and knowledge through the process of collaborating with peers
9 The learners respect the ability and contribution of the fellow
10 Lessons happen in informal and flexible ways
11 Lessons do not need to be in fixed structure
12 The learners actively monitor the progress of their group activities
13 The teacher may not be present for instructing or monitoring
14 The learners set their own evaluation criteria for group's products
15 The learners are in charge of assessing their learning products and monitoring the entire learning process of the group
Dislike Neutral Like Totally like
1 The learners work in small teams to achieve a shared learning goal, under the guidance of the teacher
2 The learners are responsible for each other’s learning, along with their own learning
3 The teacher designs learning activities for the learners
4 The teacher guides learners on how to solve learning tasks
5 The teacher assigns learning tasks to each learner
6 Various aspects of the problem are determined, and learners are given the responsibility of finding a solution to different aspects which is then integrated to solve the problem
7 The source material is supplied to the learners by the teacher
8 The learners develop their understanding and knowledge through the process of doing their own tasks
9 The learners respect the ability and contribution of the fellow
10 Lessons happen in formal and directive ways
11 Lessons are in fixed structure ① ② ③ ④ ⑤
12 The teacher monitors the progress of the learners’ activities
13 The teacher always presents for instructing or monitoring
14 The teacher sets the evaluation criteria for learners’ products
15 The teacher is in charge of assessing learners’ learning products and monitoring the entire learning process of the groups
APPENDIX 2 BẢNG HỎI Hướng dẫn: Đánh dấu tích () vào ô phù hợp với mức độ yêu thích của bạn
1 Học sinh được ghép nhóm hoặc ghép cặp với nhau để cùng đạt được một mục tiêu chung
2 Học sinh chịu trách nhiệm với việc học tập của nhau cũng như với việc học của chính mình
3 Học sinh được chủ động thiết kế các hoạt động học tập
4 Học sinh bàn bạc, thảo luận để tìm ra cách thực hiện nhiệm vụ
5 Học sinh được tự do thương lượng với nhau để phân chia nhiệm vụ
6 Học sinh giải quyết vấn đề dựa trên sự hợp tác lẫn nhau, sự tham gia và nỗ lực chung của mỗi thành viên
7 Học sinh chia sẻ kiến thức, kinh nghiệm và các tài liệu cần thiết cho nhau
8 Học sinh phát triển vốn hiểu biết và kiến thức của mình thông qua quá trình cộng tác với bạn bè
9 Học sinh tôn trọng khả năng và sự đóng góp của các thành viên trong nhóm
10 Tiết học diễn ra một cách tự do, thoải mái, linh hoạt
11 Tiết học không nhất thiết phải diễn ra theo cấu trúc định sẵn
12 Học sinh chủ động kiểm soát tiến trình hoạt động của nhóm mình
13 Giáo viên có thể không xuất hiện trong quá trình học tập của học sinh để hướng dẫn hay giám sát
14 Học sinh tự đặt ra tiêu chí đánh giá cho các sản phẩm học tập của nhóm
15 Học sinh là người đánh giá các sản phẩm học tập và giám sát toàn bộ quá trình học tập của nhóm
1 Học sinh làm việc theo nhóm nhỏ để đạt được mục tiêu học tập chung, dưới sự hướng dẫn của giáo viên
2 Học sinh chịu trách nhiệm với việc học tập của nhau cũng như với việc học của chính mình
3 Giáo viên thiết kế các hoạt động học tập cho học sinh
4 Giáo viên định hướng cách giải quyết các nhiệm vụ học tập
5 Giáo viên phân nhiệm vụ học tập cho từng học sinh
Table 4 shows that the absolute value of t (-3.13) was greater than table value
(0.11) at 0.005 level Hence, Ho1 was rejected and Ha was accepted It means that
41 there was difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of Group 1 after being treated by collaborative learning method To be more specific, Chart 1 below illustrated the changes in students’ scores on pretest and posttest of Group 1 after the treatment
Chart 2 Difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest in reading skill in
Ho2: There is no difference between the mean scores of Group 2 on pretest and posttest
Ha: There is difference between the mean scores of Group 2 on pretest and posttest
Table 5: Difference between mean scores of Group 2 with regard to achievement in reading on pretest and posttest
The results of t-test revealed that the absolute value of t (-1.88) was greater than table value (0.11) at 0.005 significance of level Hence, Ho2 was rejected and
Ha was accepted It means that there was difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of Group 2 after being treated by cooperative learning method Chart 2 below demonstrated specifically the changes in scores of Group 2 in achievement of reading
Chart 3 Difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of reading skill in
In conclusion, it can be seen from the results that there is difference between mean scores of Group 1 (collaborative learning method) and Group 2 (cooperative learning method) with regard to achievement in reading skill on pre-test and post- test Specifically, the mean scores of Group 1 increased by 0.95 while that of Group
2 raised 0.6 It revealed that there is difference in term of achievement in reading skill in both groups when adopting collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method In this study, students from collaborative learning group seemed to outperform those from cooperative learning group in developing students' reading skills
4.1.2 The influence of collaborative learning method versus cooperative learning method on students’ academic achievements in speaking skill
This part deals with the results of pretests and posttests in speaking in both groups which have been presented as under:
• Table 6 presents the results of Group 1 and Group 2 on pre-test
• Table 7 presents the results of Group 1 with regard to achievement in speaking on pretest and posttest
• Table 8 presents the results of Group 2 with regard to achievement in speaking on pretest and posttest
Table 6: Significance of difference between mean scores of Group 1 and Group 2 in speaking on pretest
Table 6 indicates that the mean score of Group 1 in reading was 7.95 and that of the
Group 2 was 7.93 on pretest The difference between the two means was not significant at 0.005 level Hence, both the groups were found to be almost balanced on pretest
Table 7 and 8 deal with results of pretest and posttest of Group 1 and Group 2 respectively
Ho3: There is no difference between the mean scores of Group 1 on pretest and posttest
Ha: There is difference between the mean scores of Group 1 on pretest and posttest
Table 7: Significance of difference between mean scores of Group 1 with regard to achievement in speaking on pretest and posttest
The results of t-test revealed that the absolute value of t (-2.58) was greater than table value (0.11) at 0.005 significance of level Hence, Ho3 was rejected and
Ha was accepted It means that there was difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of Group 1 after being treated by collaborative learning method
Specifically, Chart 3 below illustrated the changes in scores of students in pretest and posttest in Group 1 after the treatment
Chart 4 Difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of speaking skill in Group 1
Ho4: There is no difference between the mean scores of Group 2 on pretest and posttest
Ha: There is difference between the mean scores of Group 2 on pretest and posttest
Table 8: Significance of difference between mean scores of Group 2 with regard to achievement in speaking on pretest and posttest
The results of t-test revealed that the absolute value of t (-4.60) was greater than table value (0.11) at 0.005 significance of level Hence, Ho4 was rejected and
Ha was accepted It means that there was difference between mean scores on pretest
46 and posttest of Group 2 after being treated by cooperative learning method Chart 4 below revealed specifically the enhancement in scores of reading in Group 2
Chart 5 Difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of speaking skill in Group 2
To sum up, the results from the caculated data confirmed that there is difference between mean scores of Group 1 (collaborative learning method) and Group 2 (cooperative learning method) with regard to achievement in speaking skill on pretest and posttest To be specific, the mean scores of Group 1 increased 0.64 while that of Group 2 raised 1.12 It obviously indicates that there is difference in term of achievement in speaking skill in both groups when adopting collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method In which, cooperative learning method seemed to exceed collaborative learning method in enhancing students' speaking skills whereas collaborative learning method seemed to outperform cooperative learning method in term of improving student’s reading skill
4.2 The students’ preferences to some particular features of collaborative and cooperative learning method
In order to assess the preferences of students about some features of collaborative and cooperative learning method, survey questionnaires and interviews were adopted The data from responses in the questionnaires and the interviews were analyzed and presented below
The students were instructed to mark the most satisfied choices in the statements for their preferences which were scaled from ① to ⑤ The maximum score for one statement is ⑤, so one statement delivered to 22 students in one group could be able to reach a score of 110 The statements (2) and (9) in both questionnaires are similar which means the two learning methods share some common features in terms of students’ awareness of teamwork values and positive behaviors when working with others The other statements will be different in both groups which give the description about the students’ preferences to some features that are about teacher’s role and learner’s role in class
4.2.1 The students’ preferences to some particular features of collaborative leaning method in Group 1
Table 9 below revealed the total scores given by students for each statement in the survey questionnaire
Table 9 Students’ marking for their preferences to some features of collaborative learning method in Group 1
1 The learners are grouped or paired together, to achieve a common goal 98
2 The learners are responsible for each other’s learning, along with their own learning 92
3 The learners have freedom to design learning activities 107
4 The learners discuss to find out solutions for learning tasks 89
5 Roles and responsibilities among learners are negotiated and agreed 108
6 Problems are solved by mutual cooperation, involvement, and combined effort of the learners 94
7 The learners share source material among 89
8 The learners develop their understanding and knowledge through the process of collaborating with peers
9 The learners respect the ability and contribution of the fellow 105
10 Lessons happen in informal and flexible ways 108
11 Lessons do not need to be in fixed structure 100
12 The learners actively monitor the progress of their group activities 94
13 The teacher may not be present for instructing or monitoring 83
14 The learners set their own evaluation criteria for group's products 98
15 The learners are in charge of assessing their learning products and monitoring the entire learning process of the group
Particularly, the following generalizations can be made about the results presented in Table 9 First of all, the students had the highest total score (108) for the statements 5 and 10, “Roles and responsibilities among learners are negotiated and agreed.” and “Lessons happen in informal and flexible ways.” It means that most of students were very satisfied when they were given opportunity to choose their own course of action without the intervention of the teacher in classroom Presumably, they desired to have a less structured classroom where the students had more freedom to make choice of what they wanted to achieve in class The students' strong preference for statement 5 suggests that they would have rather negotiated and come to an agreement on roles and duties among themselves than have the teacher assign them
Additionally, the second highest score for this part is statement 7, “The learners have freedom to design learning activities.” (total score = 107) This finding reveals that many students already recognized they could become independent and self-directed learners That means they would prefer to take more responsible for their learning when they had to create their own learning activities The next lower mean score was for statement 9, “The learners respect the ability and contribution of the fellow.” (total score = 105) This reveals a great number of students really appreciated the contribution of each member in their team when working in collaboration context
Meanwhile, the statement that had the lowest score (83) was “The teacher may not be present for instructing or monitoring.” To this result, there were one student who chose scale 2 and five students who chose scale 3 for the statement The number for response options “Dissatisfied” and “Neutral” accounts approximately for 27% of experimental group The rest of group that rated for response options “Satisfied” and “Very Satisfied” accounts for 73% This result reflects a fact that most students were still satisfied with the absence of the teacher during classes However, there is a minor number of students who voted for the teacher’s presence in class This required the researcher to conduct interviews at later stage to invest more on students’ perceptions about this feature of collaborative learning The interviews were carried out in form of informal talks between the teacher and the students Here are some responses from the participants:
Interview question 1: Do you think teachers should always be present in class? Why/Why not?
First of all, student M who chose option 2 “Dissatisfied” for the statement
“The teacher may not be present for instructing or monitoring.” expressed “Yes, I think teachers should always be in class because class is usually noisy and messy when teachers are not there This makes me angry and stressful since I cannot focus on my work.”
Another response from student Q who voted option 3 “Neutral” for this statement was “I think teachers do not need to attend class all the time, but they should be in class in maybe half of class time to observe and control class.”
On the contrary to the opinions of two students above, student H who voted for option 5 “Very Satisfied” said “I like to work with my teammates without the presence of teachers because we feel that we have more freedom to do things we want to such as moving around or free talking.”
Another interview question was conducted to aim at the statements that received the highest scores The statements were about students’ agency in terms of facilitating classroom by themselves Here are some responses from the participants:
Interview question 2: What do you think are the roles and responsibilities of the teachers and the learners in classroom?
The interview received some responses from the students, who expressed some common opinions about the features of orientation in classroom using collaborative method
With student T who rated 5 points for the statement “Roles and responsibilities among learners are negotiated and agreed.”, she said that “I really like to choose my own tasks rather than being assigned by my teachers Sometimes I and my teammates feel a bit hard to divide the tasks, but we try to deal with it immediately.”
The results of t-test revealed that the absolute value of t (-1.88) was greater than table value (0.11) at 0.005 significance of level Hence, Ho2 was rejected and
Ha was accepted It means that there was difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of Group 2 after being treated by cooperative learning method Chart 2 below demonstrated specifically the changes in scores of Group 2 in achievement of reading
Chart 3 Difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of reading skill in
In conclusion, it can be seen from the results that there is difference between mean scores of Group 1 (collaborative learning method) and Group 2 (cooperative learning method) with regard to achievement in reading skill on pre-test and post- test Specifically, the mean scores of Group 1 increased by 0.95 while that of Group
2 raised 0.6 It revealed that there is difference in term of achievement in reading skill in both groups when adopting collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method In this study, students from collaborative learning group seemed to outperform those from cooperative learning group in developing students' reading skills
4.1.2 The influence of collaborative learning method versus cooperative learning method on students’ academic achievements in speaking skill
This part deals with the results of pretests and posttests in speaking in both groups which have been presented as under:
• Table 6 presents the results of Group 1 and Group 2 on pre-test
• Table 7 presents the results of Group 1 with regard to achievement in speaking on pretest and posttest
• Table 8 presents the results of Group 2 with regard to achievement in speaking on pretest and posttest
Table 6: Significance of difference between mean scores of Group 1 and Group 2 in speaking on pretest
Table 6 indicates that the mean score of Group 1 in reading was 7.95 and that of the
Group 2 was 7.93 on pretest The difference between the two means was not significant at 0.005 level Hence, both the groups were found to be almost balanced on pretest
Table 7 and 8 deal with results of pretest and posttest of Group 1 and Group 2 respectively
Ho3: There is no difference between the mean scores of Group 1 on pretest and posttest
Ha: There is difference between the mean scores of Group 1 on pretest and posttest
Table 7: Significance of difference between mean scores of Group 1 with regard to achievement in speaking on pretest and posttest
The results of t-test revealed that the absolute value of t (-2.58) was greater than table value (0.11) at 0.005 significance of level Hence, Ho3 was rejected and
Ha was accepted It means that there was difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of Group 1 after being treated by collaborative learning method
Specifically, Chart 3 below illustrated the changes in scores of students in pretest and posttest in Group 1 after the treatment
Chart 4 Difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of speaking skill in Group 1
Ho4: There is no difference between the mean scores of Group 2 on pretest and posttest
Ha: There is difference between the mean scores of Group 2 on pretest and posttest
Table 8: Significance of difference between mean scores of Group 2 with regard to achievement in speaking on pretest and posttest
The results of t-test revealed that the absolute value of t (-4.60) was greater than table value (0.11) at 0.005 significance of level Hence, Ho4 was rejected and
Ha was accepted It means that there was difference between mean scores on pretest
46 and posttest of Group 2 after being treated by cooperative learning method Chart 4 below revealed specifically the enhancement in scores of reading in Group 2
Chart 5 Difference between mean scores on pretest and posttest of speaking skill in Group 2
To sum up, the results from the caculated data confirmed that there is difference between mean scores of Group 1 (collaborative learning method) and Group 2 (cooperative learning method) with regard to achievement in speaking skill on pretest and posttest To be specific, the mean scores of Group 1 increased 0.64 while that of Group 2 raised 1.12 It obviously indicates that there is difference in term of achievement in speaking skill in both groups when adopting collaborative learning method and cooperative learning method In which, cooperative learning method seemed to exceed collaborative learning method in enhancing students' speaking skills whereas collaborative learning method seemed to outperform cooperative learning method in term of improving student’s reading skill
4.2 The students’ preferences to some particular features of collaborative and cooperative learning method
In order to assess the preferences of students about some features of collaborative and cooperative learning method, survey questionnaires and interviews were adopted The data from responses in the questionnaires and the interviews were analyzed and presented below
The students were instructed to mark the most satisfied choices in the statements for their preferences which were scaled from ① to ⑤ The maximum score for one statement is ⑤, so one statement delivered to 22 students in one group could be able to reach a score of 110 The statements (2) and (9) in both questionnaires are similar which means the two learning methods share some common features in terms of students’ awareness of teamwork values and positive behaviors when working with others The other statements will be different in both groups which give the description about the students’ preferences to some features that are about teacher’s role and learner’s role in class
4.2.1 The students’ preferences to some particular features of collaborative leaning method in Group 1
Table 9 below revealed the total scores given by students for each statement in the survey questionnaire
Table 9 Students’ marking for their preferences to some features of collaborative learning method in Group 1
1 The learners are grouped or paired together, to achieve a common goal 98
2 The learners are responsible for each other’s learning, along with their own learning 92
3 The learners have freedom to design learning activities 107
4 The learners discuss to find out solutions for learning tasks 89
5 Roles and responsibilities among learners are negotiated and agreed 108
6 Problems are solved by mutual cooperation, involvement, and combined effort of the learners 94
7 The learners share source material among 89
8 The learners develop their understanding and knowledge through the process of collaborating with peers
9 The learners respect the ability and contribution of the fellow 105
10 Lessons happen in informal and flexible ways 108
11 Lessons do not need to be in fixed structure 100
12 The learners actively monitor the progress of their group activities 94
13 The teacher may not be present for instructing or monitoring 83
14 The learners set their own evaluation criteria for group's products 98
15 The learners are in charge of assessing their learning products and monitoring the entire learning process of the group
Particularly, the following generalizations can be made about the results presented in Table 9 First of all, the students had the highest total score (108) for the statements 5 and 10, “Roles and responsibilities among learners are negotiated and agreed.” and “Lessons happen in informal and flexible ways.” It means that most of students were very satisfied when they were given opportunity to choose their own course of action without the intervention of the teacher in classroom Presumably, they desired to have a less structured classroom where the students had more freedom to make choice of what they wanted to achieve in class The students' strong preference for statement 5 suggests that they would have rather negotiated and come to an agreement on roles and duties among themselves than have the teacher assign them
Additionally, the second highest score for this part is statement 7, “The learners have freedom to design learning activities.” (total score = 107) This finding reveals that many students already recognized they could become independent and self-directed learners That means they would prefer to take more responsible for their learning when they had to create their own learning activities The next lower mean score was for statement 9, “The learners respect the ability and contribution of the fellow.” (total score = 105) This reveals a great number of students really appreciated the contribution of each member in their team when working in collaboration context
Meanwhile, the statement that had the lowest score (83) was “The teacher may not be present for instructing or monitoring.” To this result, there were one student who chose scale 2 and five students who chose scale 3 for the statement The number for response options “Dissatisfied” and “Neutral” accounts approximately for 27% of experimental group The rest of group that rated for response options “Satisfied” and “Very Satisfied” accounts for 73% This result reflects a fact that most students were still satisfied with the absence of the teacher during classes However, there is a minor number of students who voted for the teacher’s presence in class This required the researcher to conduct interviews at later stage to invest more on students’ perceptions about this feature of collaborative learning The interviews were carried out in form of informal talks between the teacher and the students Here are some responses from the participants:
Interview question 1: Do you think teachers should always be present in class? Why/Why not?
First of all, student M who chose option 2 “Dissatisfied” for the statement
“The teacher may not be present for instructing or monitoring.” expressed “Yes, I think teachers should always be in class because class is usually noisy and messy when teachers are not there This makes me angry and stressful since I cannot focus on my work.”
Another response from student Q who voted option 3 “Neutral” for this statement was “I think teachers do not need to attend class all the time, but they should be in class in maybe half of class time to observe and control class.”
On the contrary to the opinions of two students above, student H who voted for option 5 “Very Satisfied” said “I like to work with my teammates without the presence of teachers because we feel that we have more freedom to do things we want to such as moving around or free talking.”
Another interview question was conducted to aim at the statements that received the highest scores The statements were about students’ agency in terms of facilitating classroom by themselves Here are some responses from the participants:
Interview question 2: What do you think are the roles and responsibilities of the teachers and the learners in classroom?
The interview received some responses from the students, who expressed some common opinions about the features of orientation in classroom using collaborative method
With student T who rated 5 points for the statement “Roles and responsibilities among learners are negotiated and agreed.”, she said that “I really like to choose my own tasks rather than being assigned by my teachers Sometimes I and my teammates feel a bit hard to divide the tasks, but we try to deal with it immediately.”
Similar to student T, student C said “I feel it is interesting if I am able to choose the tasks that I am good at My friends can do other tasks if they are good at them.”