Minor Research Full Draft Part2

8/3/2019 Minor Research Full Draft Part2

1/54

Chapter I: Introduction

English language is eminent in the Arab countries. English language acquisition is

considered a desirable goal as it is seen as the language of international communication as

well as the language of technology and business, (Andrew OSullivan, 2002). Arab

countries differ in their need for English due to many factors. In the UAE, learners of

English seem to have better opportunities to use authentic English outside the classroom

than their fellow Arabs in other countries. The situation is different in the United Arab

Emirates, for example, where people use English in their daily lives because of the

multilingual nature of the residents. (Rababah 2003: 15)

English is widely used in modern UAE society; media, press, internet, daily life, which

provides good environment for learners to use English for communication. However, the

level of English in the classroom is quite poor and many students find it too difficult to

learn English and use it as a means of communication locally. According to

Kharma and Hajjaj (1989:2) the problem behind this is that English:

is a school subject rather than a means of communication. The pass mark is often

very low which means that students can precede to a higher class without mastering all

the skills they have to master.

Jill Hadfield (1992: 7) reported that the most common complaint of teachers who are teaching

English as a second or foreign language is that the group doesn't gel or the same students are

always relied upon for providing answers while quieter or reluctant students rarely get

opportunities to speak in class. David Nunan (Celce-Murica, 2001) demonstrated challenges

that EFL and ESL teachers confront. His survey of EFL teachers showed that the most

challenging aspects of teaching EFL are: 1. lack of motivation; 2) getting students to speak; and

3) use of first language in the classroom.

As educators of 21st

century students, teachers are expected to reflect on and re-evaluatetheir instructional practices. There have been many world changes that make it imperative

for teachers to analyse and reflect on their traditional practices in schools. Kagan (1994)

has suggested that one important question is are teachers preparing students for full

engagement in the rapidly changing, information-based, high technology and

interdependent global economy and society? (p. 2:1). He advocates that schools must

7


2/54

produce students who are capable of using higher-level thinking skills and effective

communication and social skills.

Cooperative learning is a form of instruction in which students work in small groups to

achieve a shared goal but are also required to make individual contributions. In this way

individual students can seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves and to the other

group members (Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec, 1998). Many studies have looked at

cooperative learning as a way of preparing students learners for a continually changing

society.

Cooperative learning has been shown to have a positive impact on classroom environment

in terms of fostering social interaction, developing communication skills, higher-levelthinking skills, a more internal locus of control, role taking abilities, time spent on task,

attendance at school and improved attitudes to school and learning (Johnson & Johnson,

1999; Kagan, 1994).

It is hypothesized that using cooperative learning strategies can necessarily lead to more

students' self -independence and great achievement improvement. Although hundreds of

studies have been done on cooperative learning since the beginning of the century

according to Johnson and Johnson (1999), there have been 550 experimental and 100correlation studies conducted, and although those studies indicate that cooperative

learning supports positive interdependence, interpersonal relationships, achievement,

psychological health, and social competence (Johnson and Johnson, 1989, 1999), I believe

there is a need to have more studies to be conducted that indicate the above mentioned

benefits of cooperative learning in Arabic speaking countries which have different

educational settings and social backgrounds.

Kagan (Kagan, 1994; Kagan and Kagan, 1998) has developed a range of classroom

"structures which may be thought of as steps to classroom activities. These structures stress

positive interpersonal peer relationships, equality, self-esteem, and achievement. Students

can work together by following the steps of the structure, using material or content selected

by the students themselves or by the teacher. These structures are built on four main

principles:Positive Interdependence, Individual Accountability, Equal Participation and

8


3/54

Simultaneous Interaction (Kagan 1989). In this research study the researcher will use a

number of Kagans Cooperative Structures (KCS) as examples of cooperative learning

strategies.

Although Cooperative grouping, in which EL students work cooperatively with native

speakers of English, increases students opportunities to hear and produce English and to

negotiate meaning with others (Diaz-Rico, L., & Weed, K. 2002, p. 178), I believe there is

a need to investigate how possible it is for Arab learners of English, who are used to use

their mother tongue language in learning English, to communicate in cooperative learning

setting which might hinder the targeted language.

Students learn English in government school in the UAE as a foreign language. In primary

levels English is given not more than 17 % of the total number of weekly classes. All other

subjects are taught in Arabic. The majority of students and their parents consider English a

difficult-to-learn language although it has become widely used in the UAE by local and non

local people. Students show very little interest in learning English and using it. For them it

is considered as one of the subjects that students study and need only to get pass mark in,

which is usually very low, to move to a higher class, (Kharma and Hajjaj, 1989:2).

Mustafas(2002) research based on interviews with UAE school teachers and school

graduates reveals that much of school based language teaching is based on outmoded

methodology and that students blame this for their failure to develop positive attitudes

towards the language. Mustafa characterizes the situation in UAE schools as teachers using

the transmission model to deliver information to exam takers. I believe learners of EFL

should be exposed to real life situations where they can think together, negotiate and share

ideas, help and ask for help to achieve apparent goals stated in the plans as well as the

immeasurable social skills, which can hardly be assessed in the UAE's educational settingwhere students are mainly assessed through written exams of reading and writing.

I have been using cooperative learning strategies in teaching English for more than 8 years,

but I have never evaluated my work formally. As part of my professionaldevelopment, I

have received training courses in using cooperative learning strategies which helped me

have more control over my classes and get students feel more enthusiastic about their

9


4/54

learning. It was a great chance for me to conduct this study and have in-depth investigation

to find out more about the KCS that I have used over those years. I believe this study would

add a lot to my experience as a teacher and a researcher.

I.1: The Purpose of the Study

Through the researchers reflections on his own practices in the classroom and the

involvement of all students when cooperative learning strategies were used, and his

observations as a teacher of English and a coordinator, and his visits to colleagues in

the classrooms, he felt there is a need to enhance the teaching strategies by using

cooperative learning strategies in the classroom. Most teachers complain that students

are demotivated and lack the interest to learn. Some colleagues and I who attended a

training program on cooperative learning, multiple intelligences and learning styles are

aware that the problem does not lie in the students themselves, it lies in the way we

want them to learn.

Statement of the Hypotheses

The study aims at testing the following three hypotheses/questions:

1. Can KCS help EFL learners improve their oral and communication skills in a way that

helps them to feel more interested in learning English?

2. Do Kagans Cooperative Structures (KCS) have the potential to make the class workmore interesting and the students more motivated to learn?

3. Can KCS immerse students in meaningful activities that help them improve socially and

academically?

I have chosen this particular study to find out how cooperative learning strategies can be

used in English language teaching to enhance teaching and learning practices.

Rationale for the Hypotheses

Although a lot of research was conducted on the effects of Cooperative language learning

and the chances it provides to learners to produce language in an authentic manner, those

positive effects need more research to be proven in an EFL setting in an Arab country

where young learners have been exposed to classical teaching strategies and have rarely

used English to communicate outside the classroom. Would it be possible for the KCS to

change the traditional classroom setting where discourse is usually initiated by the teacher

10


5/54

artificially? Can those learners in such a setting become more competent to use English

normally as means of communication through the use of KCS?

I.2: The Importance of the Research

The success of this study is of great interest to teachers of EFL by making them aware of

the impact of using cooperative learning strategies in teaching English. This recognition is

necessary to encourage them to use these strategies in their own teaching of English as well

as to promote further research. The paper is expected to foster understanding of the

importance and value of cooperative learning strategies in teaching EFL to improve

communication and social skills as well as achievement and discipline.

The study plays a fundamental role in encouraging and adopting new teaching strategies by

teachers of EFL toenable students of dealing with world future tools of openness,

communication and understanding.The study will be an important contribution to teaching

English as a foreign language in the Arabian Gulf.

Students have been exposed to a new approach of learning English in a meaningful way.

They have shown enthusiasm towards the new teaching strategies and expressed their

opinions freely. Also, they had the chance to take part in the study which made them feel

more responsible for their learning. I believe their participating in the study added a lot to

their experience and knowledge.

Chapter II: Literature Review

I.1. What is cooperative learning (CL)?

The literature indicates that students are too passive and need to become more involved

intellectually in classroom activities (Good et al., 1987). Apart from listening to the teacher

passively, what students actually need is to act on concepts themselves and to share their

thinking with teachers and peers.

Olsen and Kagan (1992) define cooperative learning as a group learning activities

organized so that learning is dependent on the socially structured exchange of information

between learners in groups and in which each learner is held accountable for his or her own

learning and is motivated to increase the learning of others . It is a teaching arrangement

11


6/54

that refers to small, heterogeneous groups of students working together to achieve a

common goal (Kagan, 1994).

According to the Johnson & Johnson model (1998):

Cooperative learning is instruction that involves students working in teams to accomplish

a common goal, under conditions that include the following elements: Positive

interdependence, individual accountability, face-to-face promotive interaction, appropriate

use of collaborative skills and group processing.

Cooperative learning is a form of instruction in which students work in small groups to

achieve a shared goal but are also required to make individual contributions. In this way

individual students can seek outcomes that are beneficial to themselves and to the othergroup members (Johnson, Johnson, and Holubec, 1998).

Starting from 1960s some cooperative learning methods appeared to existence. They started

to be developed and tested in many different educational settings and contexts. In an

historic overview (Johnson & Johnson, 1999) nine methods of cooperative learning are

listed. Johnson and Johnson developed Learning Together and Alone and Constructive

Controversy, DeVries & Edwards created Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT), Sharan &

Sharan developed Group Investigation, Aronson developed the Jigsaw Procedure, Slavincreated Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD), Team Accelerated Instruction

(TAI) and Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition (CIRC), and Kagan developed

Cooperative Learning Structures.

Cooperative language learning has been proclaimed as an effective instructional approach

in promoting the cognitive and linguistic development of learners of English as a Second

Language (ESL) or English as a Foreign Language (EFL) (Kagan, 1995; Kessler, 1992;

McGroarty, 1989, 1993).

Few decades ago, CL was introduced and treated as a framework in second language

teaching as it maximizes authentic communication among students (Shaaban & Ghaith,

2005). It provides means of integrating four language skills (McCafferty, Jacobs & DaSilva

Iddings, 2006). I believe learners of ESL or EFL lack the opportunity to get involved in

12


7/54

authentic and meaningful activities that enable them to use English as a means of

communication not only a school subject that they have to get a pass mark in.

II. 2. Kagan Cooperative Structures:

Kagan cooperative structures were developed after years of experimentation with children

from many parts of the world, (Kagan, 2003). Kagan started applying work in classrooms

after years of continuous research which revealed that the situation in which kids are placed

in is the most powerful motive for them to cooperate. Thus they can be highly cooperative

or highly competitive based on which situation they are placed in.

Based on the research there was a need to invent suitable situations in the classroom that

could elicit cooperation among students. Kagan (2003) argues that if teachers create the

right kinds of situations for students, they foster a range of positive outcomes among

students including cooperativeness.

Placing students in groups is very essential in cooperative learning. Forming a team of four

students, heterogeneous team: a low achieving student, two middle, and one high, is the

most popular formation in cooperative learning. Including a mix of gender and ethnic

mixture to reflect the classroom population should also be taken into consideration. Having

heterogeneous formation is argued to ensure the greatest opportunities for peer support and

tutoring. Occasionally, random or special interest teams could be formed to maximize

student talents or meet a specific student need (Kagan, 1994).

II. 3. PIES concepts:

KCS are based on the PIES factors. These concepts are essential to Dr Kagan's structural

approach to cooperative learning (Kagan, 1994): (P) positive interdependence; (I)

individual accountability; (E) equal participation; and (S) simultaneous interaction.

Positive interdependence means that the success of every student is linked to the success of

others in the group and in the class. Every student should have that positive impact on the

others. The greater this positive impact is, the greater the gains will be. Learners in this

learning setting are put in a situation that makes everyone needs the other to succeed which

13


8/54

in turn urges them to be more responsible for each other's learning. It is a must that all

members of the group should cooperate well.

In this relationship of positive interdependence failure of one student is a failure of a group.Ensuring that everyone has learned becomes the students' responsibility rather than the

teacher's. The relationship among the students is no more a competitive one where a gain of

a student becomes a loss for another; a loss of a student becomes a gain for another.

Individual accountability means a procedure to ensure that each participant individually

contributes a fair share to a group effort. It might also mean there is a way to evaluate the

quality of the effort or result of each member.

Equal participation means that all students receive the same chances and incentives to beinvolved in class. Kagan's approach uses careful task design (e.g. the task has equal sized

and equal status roles for all participants in the activity, or if roles are not equal status, such

as leader and checker, roles are randomly assigned and would be rotated over the course of

the term), rewards, and accountability procedures to encourage equal participation.

Simultaneous interaction means that all students are actively engaged at the same time

during the class. An example would be 20 pairs of students in a 40-person class all

talking/listening simultaneously, as opposed to one student out of 40 answering a teacher's

question, while all the others are or are not listening or participating.

II.4. CL and achievement:

CL has been compared to individualistic competitive instruction in hundreds of studies

which showed contradicted and no clear-cut results. Some studies proved that student

performance is significantly increased when CL is used, while others' results were in favour

of competitive instruction.

Although teachers have cooperative learning as an instructional methodology, it is not

widely used by them; it is currently the least frequently used (Johnson & Johnson, 1991;

van Wyk, 2007). More than 85% of the instruction in schools consists of lectures, seatwork,

or competition in which students are isolated from one another and sometimes forbidden to

14


9/54

interact (Humphreys, Johnson, Johnson & Roy, 1984). Goodlad (1984) stated that "teacher

talk" consumes most of classroom time. I believe the outdated teaching strategies used

nowadays play a significant role in deteriorating the levels of achievement and motivation

in schools.

In a summary report of the study about cooperative learning strategies, Johnson, Johnson,

& Stanne (2000) state that cooperative learning strategies are widely used because they are

based on theory, validated by research, and almost any teacher can find a way to use

cooperative learning methods that are consistent with personal philosophies.

In 67 studies of the achievement effects of cooperative learning 61% found significantly

greater achievement in cooperative than in traditionally taught control groups. Positive

effects were found in all major subjects, all grade levels, in urban, rural, and suburban

schools, and for high, average, and low achievers (Slavin, 1991). He also reported that CL

has a positive effect on academic achievement, mainstreaming, intergroup relations, and

self-esteem.

In another summary of a meta-analysis of 158 studies, Johnson & Johnson report that

current research findings present evidence that cooperative learning methods are likely to

produce positive achievement results. Kagan's Cooperative Learning Structures were not

specifically investigated in these studies.

II.5. CL and motivation:

Woolfolk and Hoy (2006) define motivation as an internal state that arouses, directs and

maintains behaviour. Whether it is intrinsic or extrinsic, it is the main factor of success for

every individual. Sometimes it appears very essential to use incentives to motivate students

to achieve their assigned tasks. However, building intrinsically motivated learners, I

believe, is more important and its positive impacts last longer.

Motivation is rarely a problem for ESL students studying in English speaking countries; it

is the major problem for EFL students studying English in their home countries (Wigzell &

Al-Ansari, 1993).

15


10/54

A teacher may have a positive influence on his/her students motivations and beliefs over

time, but students needs at the beginning of a foreign language class require more

immediate intervention and support (Horwitz, 1986; Rogers, 1983; Young, 1999). Since

teachers are in a position of authority, they can establish cooperative learning groups to

provide this support (Slavin, 1991).

According to Slavin (1987), there are two major theoretical perspectives related to

cooperative learning -- motivational and cognitive. The motivational theories of

cooperative learning emphasize the students' incentives to do academic work, while the

cognitive theories emphasize the effects of working together. A major influence on

students' achievement is their feeling and perception that they can achieve. It was noted by

Eggen, Jacobsen, Kauchak (2006) that teachers facilitate the internalization process and

they do so effectively by designing learning activities that promote a positive, academic and

cognitive self concept.

Reward and goal structures are the main focus of cooperative learning motivational

theories. One of the elements of cooperative learning is positive interdependence, where

students perceive that their success or failure lies within their working together as a group

(Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1986). From a motivational perspective, cooperative goal

structure creates a situation in which the only way group members can attain their personal

goals is if the group is successful (Slavin, 1990, p. 14). Therefore, students play an

essential role in encouraging their group members to attain their personal goals; they need

to encourage members within the group to do their best and succeed in achieving the group

task.

So, according to the preceding review, the ultimate goal of motivating students should not

be only urging them to work and achieve the stated tasks, it should be increasing and

guiding their intrinsic motivation by providing them with opportunities of working

cooperatively to make them feel a sense of responsibility, achievement and trust that they

can learn with minimal help or guidance from the teacher. Thus, they can have more

control over their behaviour and direct it to the benefit of themselves and their classmates.

16


11/54

II.6. CL and social and communication skills

Social skills encompass communicating, building and maintaining trust, providing

leadership, and managing conflicts (Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1993). So teaching theseskills is important to guarantee the success of teaching and learning process.

Cooperative learning has been shown to have a positive impact on classroom environment

in terms of fostering social interaction, developing communication skills, higher-level

thinking skills, a more internal locus of control, role taking abilities, time spent on task,

attendance at school and improved attitudes to school and learning (Johnson & Johnson,

1999; Kagan, 1994).

Research shows that students are more positive about school, subject area, and teachers

when they work cooperatively (Johnson & Johnson, 1999). In a classroom setting,

cooperative groups give students opportunities to learn from and teach one another under

real world conditions. The field of cooperative learning is built upon the premise that it

can be used to enhance both academic excellence and social and emotional development

(Schmuck & Schmuck, 1997).

Moreover, according to Johnson & Johnson (1995) and Slavin (1995) cooperative-learningstudents were more likely than other students to use the cooperative behaviours they were

taught when they worked with new classmates which confirms the transferability of the

cooperative learning social and communication skills gains.

Chapter III: Methodology

In this chapter the researcher will describe the research methodology, the subjects of the

study, materials used in the study, measuring instruments, procedures and study design.

III.1: Research Methodology

Action research is a form of collective self-reflective inquiry undertaken by participants in

social situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own social or

educational practices, as well as their understanding of these practices and the situations in

which these practices are carried out (Kemmis and McTaggart 1990, p5). However, I have

17


12/54

chosen to use a different type of research paradigm, practitioner action research. In this

research paradigm, the concept of practice as knowledge production for participants is

essential in that it can both include the value of individual development and move beyond

the local and private context to add more to societal and educational development (Zeichner

& Noffke, 2001).

Lewin (1948) has argued that social practices could only be understood and changed by

involving the practitioners themselves throughout an inquiry. Fischer (1996) notes that

teacher researchers often pursue their own interests in their classroom. Practitioner

enquiry is an extremely effective means of pursuing and supporting professional

development, (Burton & Bartlett 2004, p. 12).

Practitioner research is a term that can be conceptualized as a process whereby teachers

are looking critically not only at their own practice but at broader educational questions,

(Burton & Bartlett 2004, p. 2). Burton and Bartlett (2004, p. 16) point out that

practitioner research is fundamental to developing a greater understanding of the work of

teachers and what happens in the classroom but it should also enable teachers to broaden

their thinking as educationalists.

There are some arguments in support of practitioner research in social work (Show, 2005)

two of the most common are: 1.being the professional obligation to be self-evaluating, and

2. the belief that both research and practice employ similar skills. These two supporting

arguments of practitioner research were expressed by McIvor when she says,

The starting pointis the twofold belief that practitioners should be

encouraged to engage in the evaluation of their own practice and that they

possess many of the skills which are necessary to undertake the evaluative

task. (McIvor, 1995: 210)

Much of practitioner research involves the careful study of the participants in educational

practice, very often involving the students or children - what and how they learn (Zeichner,

& Nofke, 2001).

18


13/54

The researcher used practitioner action research approach to conduct this study bearing in

mind that practitioner action research is research carried out by practitioners for the

purpose of advancing their own practice (McLeod, 1999). He intended to use this strategy

to assist him reflect on his practices systematically and learn from his own practice.

The research is personal, because it represents not only the search for general principles or

theories of school curriculum or classroom instruction but also the search for understanding

and improving ones everyday practice. My colleagues and I, through our observations and

discussions, realized there are problems to be solved. There is a need for careful study of

the participants in educational practice and involving the students to know and improve

how and what they learn.

Fischer (1996) suggests that some of the reasons for a teacher becoming involved in

practitioner action research include: an interest in knowing more about how students

learn; wanting to try something new, to innovate in a curriculum area; a desire for change

in ones teaching; and a search for connections and meanings in ones work. (p. 39).

My colleagues and I are convinced that our practices need to be changed or modified so

that our students become more motivated, positive and enthusiastic about learning and

improving their English language skills. We decided to make our practices more effective

to help our classrooms become attractive places for our students. Since this is the mainpurpose of action research, I seized the opportunity to lead the change process in my

educational institution. I understand what it means to be a change agent and how crucial

this role is in every educational institution. This role can not succeed without taking action

and trying new solutions based on theories and research.

Since the core aim of this research is to improve students motivation and performance in

English and to make their learning experience a journey of success and excellence, and to

investigate the applicability and usefulness of cooperative learning strategies for English

language learning and, potentially, for other subjects, choosing practitioner action research

approach as research paradigm is an appropriate approach for this study.

My main question in this study is: How can I improve the quality of English language

instruction for upper primary grades (4, 5,6) in a non English speaking school by using

Kagans Cooperative Structures? My imagined solution for the concerns that I have in my

19


14/54

educational setting has led me to think of using KCS. This demands that I have to take

action and become committed to finding solution for the stated concern or problem.

The questions, which are asked in a certain professional context, emphasize the importanceof a researchers values as an expert working on an issue to which he is devoted to solve

and find a solution, (McNiff, Lomax and Whitehead 1996).

In this project I will follow Kemmis and McTaggart Action Research Planner (1988) in

which there are four fundamental aspects of the action research; developing a plan of

critically informed action to improve what is happening, implementing the plan, observing

the effects of the critically informed action in the context in which it occurs and reflecting

on these effects (p. 10).

The study utilized both quantitative and qualitative methods. It included a questionnaire

which contained 18 items divided into three main categories; communication skills,

achievement and motivation and classroom environment. Also the researcher had an

interview with the participants which contained two types of items; closed, fixed-response

questions and two open ended questions.

III.2: Identification of ParticipantsThis study included thirty grade four, five and six students at a government school in Abu

Dhabi, UAE, ten from each grade level. The school belongs to a group of schools called the

model schools which are privileged by the distinguished school buildings and all the

needed facilities which might not be available in other government schools. The students

come from different social and economical backgrounds. All the thirty students are UAE

citizens. All of them are boys aged between 10 and13 years old. They all started learning

English from grade one.

The participants' level of English ranges from poor to very good according to the diagnostic

test given to them at the beginning of the year. About half of the participants' oral and

communication skills in English are poor due to the different programs implemented at the

model schools in the last few years and the instability of objectives and goals stated for

them in English and other subjects.

20


15/54

Permissions were obtained from Abu Dhabi Educational Zone and the school

administration as pre-requisites before gaining permissions from the participants. Then the

researcher sought permission from both, the participants and their parents and they were

obtained according to the stated regulations.

The researcher discussed the project with teachers of grade four and five who agreed to

help willingly. The two teachers and the researcher explained and discussed the procedures

with the whole students. The researcher explained to the students how beneficial it would

be to take part in the research. The selection of the participants was randomly made. Then

volunteers from each grade level were called for. A detailed letter in Arabic and a

permission to be signed were sent to parents along with the students' permissions. Thestudents were given three days to discuss the matter with their parents and bring back the

signed permissions before any step in the study was started. The first ten students to submit

the signed approvals in each grade level were chosen as subjects of the study.

Regardless they participated in the research or not, all the students in the classes involved in

the research received the same teaching of their normal English programme. All students

had to do the same activities and had equal opportunity to share and participate in those

planned activities. Every student was given the same rights and no credit or extra privilegewas given to the chosen group of participants. Students were assured by the researcher that

their assessment results would not be affected by participating in the research.

The researcher also explained the nature of research techniques which ensures highest

degrees of privacy, anonymity and confidentiality. It was made clear for the participants

that their names will not be mentioned in the research by any means, and their right to

withdraw from the study at any time was assured as well. The researcher explained that all

participants should express their opinions freely in the questionnaire and the interview.

They were informed that their responses would be of great value and importance to the

research and its results.

III.3: Participants' English Programme

The model school, that the researcher has implemented the study in, is a boys' school that is

run by Abu Dhabi Education Council (ADEC) who has a plan to change the schools into

21


16/54

bilingual schools. It is located in Abu Dhabi, the capital city of the United Arab Emirates.

The model schools and Public Private Partnership schools of Abu Dhabi have been

implementing a new curriculum since 2007. This curriculum was developed by a team of

experts from different countries; Australia, USA, UK, New Zealand and other countries.

The aim of (ADEC) behind this change and reform was to ensure that students have a

relevant and engaging curriculum that meets the needs and interests of students in the

Emirate of Abu Dhabi and prepares them to be global citizens. ADEC's aspiration is that

principals, teachers and parents work together to guarantee students have every opportunity

to achieve their academic potential, and to ensure that their education and time spent at

school are both positive and productive experiences.

ADEC issued the Standards which are concise, clear descriptions of the knowledge,

understanding and skills that each student should develop in each grade from K9. The

Standards are built up in a way that ensures a continuum of learning for students from

Kindergarten to Grade 9. The Standards provide parents and teachers with a clear

description of what must be taught and what students can be expected to learn in each grade

and subject.

The K9 English language arts curriculum aims at teaching students to communicate in

English effectively, compose and respond to texts in a range of modes and media and value

and enjoy English as a language in which to express their ideas and feelings. It is based on

the following three interrelated Strands which form the knowledge base for the Curriculum.

1. Talking and listening: students are expected to talk in English and to listen to and

understand English. Interaction skills are very important in classroom discussions and

group work. Oral presentation skills are important in a world where people are increasingly

judged on their ability to talk effectively in a range of situations. Furthermore, talk is an

important learning tool because students use talk to form their ideas and think through their

reading and writing. Students learn listening skills, including grasping the main point of a

spoken text, identifying details and having a personal opinion about what they hear.

2. Reading: In this strand, students learn to use contextual, semantic and grammatical

information when reading a text in English, and they learn to recognise sounds and to relate

them to the written symbols for those sounds.Students read widely in order to become

22


17/54

better readers and to learn how writers use English for different purposes, including

entertaining, persuading and informing (Text Types). They learn that, as they are reading a

text, they are making links between that text and other things, including their own previous

experiences and cultural background, other texts and what they know about how texts are

structured. In addition to reading written texts, students learn skills and strategies for

interpreting visual images and film and television productions.

3. Writing: Students learn that writing in English involves drafting, revising and talking

about their writing with others, sharing it with others, and getting feedback.

They learn to write for a range of purposes and situations, for example to entertain, explain

to someone how something works, provide information, argue a position and explore the

world of the imagination. They learn to write well-structured sentences, use grammarcorrectly, spell accurately, punctuate, and handwrite neatly and legibly.

This new academic year 2010-2011, an English Continuous Assessment Rich Task program

(ECART) was implemented in all the schools of Abu Dhabi. ECART requires students to

explore a specific theme, develop a focus statement for inquiry and research the focus

statement. They have to learn to apply skills of deep thinking, inquiry, research, analysis,

synthesis and evaluation, consider the most effective ways of presenting information

consideration for multiple intelligence perspective, work collaboratively and independentlyand to be responsible/reflective life-long learners.

ADEC curriculum and the new approach of teaching and learning process require hard

work on the side of the student as well as the teacher. Students need to learn new

techniques and strategies to achieve the set goals. The new strategies the student is

supposed to learn imply research skills, analyzing and synthesizing, decision making,

considering own preferred learning style, and presenting new knowledge to audience.

III.4: Instruments:

The researcher used qualitative and quantitative techniques to obtain data. Interviews,

questionnaires, and students' observation have been used as they have been proved to be

effective techniques. A structured interview with all the participants was conducted

although in-depth unstructured interview has the potential to establish a more thorough

23


18/54

picture of the participants' perspective. The researcher preferred structured interview to

unstructured interview due to the age and nature of participants who would feel stressed

and perplexed to sit for a relatively long period of time answering questions individually as

they are still very young, and it is the first time to take part in a study. The researcher

planned to utilize the participants' direct, straight forward responses which enabled him to

gain insight of the participants' feedback and point of view towards the use of KCS.

Another effective tool that the researcher used is the questionnaire. It enabled the researcher

to obtain large scale numerical data over a short period of time. Again, the researcher aimed

at collecting the needed data regarding the participants' points of view, behaviour and

attitudes on cooperative learning in the classroom within their group members.

As an essential part of the data collection in action research, classroom observations can

play an important role in this process. In this phase the participants will be closely

observed, as part of classroom observation during interactive activities. The observation

notes collected in the implementation phase will be analyzed to identify how each

participant responded to the new instructional techniques and activities. Since action

research will always be limited by constraints of reality, careful observation is a must

(Kemmis and McTaggart, 1988, p13). Moreover, observation should be planned,

responsive, open-eyed and open-minded, so that there will be a clear documentary basis for

subsequent reflection (p. 13). For all the above reasons keeping a research journal was

considered essential to the researcher to help improve observation skills, focus observation,

provide a record of observations, to yield research questions and further information on the

research topic, or to focus research questions, (Rust, F., and Clark, C. 2007).

All observations and notes were record in a notebook with dates and timing of these

observations. During observation time, the researcher jotted down notes about what the

participants were doing and saying. Some questions were posed to participants during the

activities to get explanations of what or why they were behaving in a certain way, and to

get an immediate response of how they felt about the new strategies and what they liked

most about them. The researcher asked the participants about their opinion regarding the

new strategies and if they could suggest any modifications or improvements to enhance

them. The researcher then reflected on the observations after class while they were still

24


19/54

fresh in mind. Also, a planned observation sheet (appendix A) was used to measure certain

aspects of the implemented activities and how the participants worked during those

activities. The researcher planned to take notes at least twice a week and jot down any

remarks that may add to the data collected using other instruments. The main focus of the

classroom observations was the change in the environment and the relations among

participants as peers or groups and how every participant behaved in different phases of the

activities. By the end of the implementation, the- researcher wrote a summary of the

journal's most remarkable notes that would help in the data analysis process.

In addition, the researcher adopted an achievement pre-test (appendix B) and post-test

which were redesigned to be used in this study. The pre-test was administered to all

participants a day before the implementation of the study and the post-test was

administered on the last day of the implementation of the program. The test included the

four strands, reading, writing, and listening and talking. The researcher aimed at including

all levels of cognitive performance described by Bloom (1956).

The reading part consisted of 30 items. The students were given five notices to match with

only five out of the eight given signs. They were also given conversations to complete by

choosing one response for each of them out of eight given responses. They were also given

five items of multiple choices questions to complete the sentences with a word out of three

alternatives. The reading comprehension part of the pre-test consisted of two reading

passages of two different text types; an information report about penguins, and a recount of

a trip around the world. The reading comprehension part of the post-test included two

passages of two different text types; an information report about an Indian farmer, and a

recount called "The Lost Ring".

The writing part included one part of two choices for the student to choose from and write

about. The students were supposed to write a paragraph either about their school, teachers,

subjects, friends, activitiesetc, or their family, activities, chores, tripsetc in the pre-test.

In the post-test the students were supposed to write a paragraph about one day trip with the

family, or their favourite free time activities

25


20/54

The listening and talking pre-test and post-test took the form of interview which consisted

of twenty questions ranged from simple direct questions to more complicated ones. The

questions of the test were designed to measure the participants' ability to give quick

responses, organize ideas in a simple way, and show competency in communication skills.

To measure these competencies a rubric of four main areas was used. It included body

language, eye contact, poise and voice. The criteria of each area was detailed and graded

from 4 to 1. This test was designed to cover the learning outcomes of oral competencies

and any improvements that have occurred during the period of the study implementation.

The targeted outcomes were presentation skills; body language, eye contact, poise and

voice, (Appendix C).

Students' interviews about the use of KCS in English language teaching and learning

processes were analysed to identify changes in students perception of CL as a new

strategy.

III.5: Instructional Material

The students of the school study a course book called Parade which is used in the new

curriculum as a resource. Teachers use it selectively and choose from it what works with

them according to the stated theme and text type. The main focus of Parade is on listening

and speaking. There is little reading and writing. Students have six periods of English per

week and each period lasts for 40 minutes.

The study, which lasted for three weeks, was conducted while the students of grade four

were supposed to study one of the text types as stated in the term plan, recount, and the

theme was 'Famous People'. Grade five students were supposed to study another text type

called exposition and the theme was Environment. Grade six students were supposed to

study a text type called narrative and the theme was Adventure. So students had to read

short adventure stories, short articles about the environment, biographies and

autobiographies. Different tasks were prepared by teachers to match the given text types;

timeline, summary, mind map, story map, reading comprehension questions, Oral pre

presentations, dialogues. Grade four studied some biographies of famous people and short

recount passages. Grade five studied reading passages about saving the trees, protecting the

26


21/54

Earth, and pollution. The short adventure stories were "The Mystery of Mrs Kim",

"Cobsdown Cat Case" and "Saturday Adventure".

The researcher prepared lesson plans for the three weeks lessons which were taught in the

implementation phase of the study, (see a sample in Appendix D). Worksheets, evaluation

sheets, observation records and other teaching materials were prepared and used during the

implementation phase, (see a sample in Appendix E).

III.6: Procedures

Prior to the implementation of the program, and being aware of the importance of the

students' readiness to cooperate and get fully involved in the study, the researcher had to

motivate them and make them aware of the implemented strategies and their importance.

To ensure the success of the implementation and to manage a good cooperative learning

program, the researcher adopted a guidance of suggestions drawn from the works of the

Johnsons and the Kagans.

The researcher explained the importance

of cooperative group work and that every member has an essential role in all

activities.

Teams of 2-4 learners were formed

heterogeneously with respect to abilities and experiences, as it was proven that

it is the best formation of groups.

Giving clear instructions and guidelines

about what and how a task should be achieved, demonstrating the activity, if

possible, and giving students enough time to understand the cooperative

structures are crucial elements in implementing this cooperative learning

program. Being available to supervise and provide

help by prompting or offering direct assistance can ensure that all members of

the team are participating.

Clear assessment criteria and peer

evaluation techniques are provided and explained.

27


22/54

According to Jere Brophy (2004 p.307), apathy, not discouragement, is the ultimate

motivational problem facing teachers. Some students show 'learned helplessness, failure

syndrome', (Brophy, 2004); they sometimes lose focus on learning. Others might show

lack of interest and enthusiasm in learning and participating in classroom activities. They

resist learning as a whole and refuse to be members in a group or take roles in doing any

activities. According to Brophy, both types of students need special motivational treatment

to be resocialized to stop the spread of their impact in the classroom and maintain a

friendly, motivating learning environment. He suggests a number of strategies that a teacher

should adopt to resocialize and involve those students in the classroom activities and make

them a vital part of the class and even the school community. Brophy suggests the

following points that the researcher took into consideration before the implementation ofthe program.

Show the students what it means to engage in academic activities with

motivation to learn, nurture their desire to do so, and follow up with appropriate

structuring and scaffolding of their learning efforts.

Become your own most valuable motivational tool by building close

relationships with students and establishing yourself as a supportive and helpful

resource person.

Consider contracting and incentive systems, as they can provide built-in

opportunities for teacherstudent collaboration in negotiating expectations and

rewards.

Discover and build on existing interests and values

The researcher also took into consideration the following duties that he should perform to

provide a motivating learning environment that enables all students to work and learn

effectively.

Creating encouraging and challenging atmosphere by designing well

planned, age-appropriate activities.

Encouraging students to think and discuss issues in the classroom.

Praising and encouraging every single improvement or achievement and

providing positive feedback.

28


23/54

Transferring the responsibility of students' learning to them by taking the

role of the helper and facilitator.

The sample of thirty students was chosen randomly, as mentioned above, depending on

their desire of participating in the study. They were given the chance to discuss the issue of

participating with their parents and after a detailed letter had been sent to the parents

explaining the nature of the program and the rights of the participants and all other issues

regarding the program. It was made clear for the participants that their participation in the

study would have no effect on their formal assessment and that they had the freedom to

withdraw at any time of the study.

The study was designed to last for three weeks and the participants' English program was to

be taught using KCS. The researcher taught grade six students and other two colleagues of

his, who teach grade four and grade five students, volunteered to participate in the study

provided the researcher prepares the needed lesson plans using the new strategies. The daily

planning included the following four cooperative structures and some other structures based

on the phase of the lesson and the thematic unit.

1. Inside-Outside Circle (Kagan, 1994) is a kinesthetic technique usually used for

summarization. It involves all students in the class and facilitates short exchanges between

students. It allows students to get up and move in the classroom. Students who would not

usually talk or get involved in oral activities would find themselves motivated to express

themselves and talk freely without being noticed by large audience. Even when they have

so little to say, they can repeat what others say. Students form two concentric circles

containing the same number of students. Every student in the inside circle faces a partner

standing in the outside circle. Partners take turns to do the assigned tasks like asking

questions, answering questions, summarizing, and adding details. Students take the same

time for doing their tasks and then they reverse roles. Each student has to ask, listen,

answer, report, or summarize. This activity can take a minute, and then the inside or outside

circle turns one step to the left or to the right to enable each student to have a new partner

and share the same concepts or ideas which were discussed with the previous partner. All

the students get involved in the activities simultaneously. The teacher can stand in the

29


24/54

center of the circle, to easily monitor student responses. The last two steps can be repeated

several times.

2. Numbered Heads togetheris a group activity by which the class is divided into small

groups from two to five students per group. Every student in each group is given a number

1-4 or more or less according to the group members. The steps of the game help the

members of each group to promote learning through active participation, cooperation, and

individual accountability. The teacher poses a question and the students take a short Think

Time to think how to answer the question. Then everyone privately writes an answer on a

sheet of paper. ThenHeads Togethertime for each group to share their answers and reach a

consensus on the group answer that every one should know and be taught. After that a

number is randomly selected by the teacher and students who have the same number in

each group should stand up and be ready to answer independently. The teacher decides how

the students should answer the questions. This structure has different variations; the

teacher's target might sometimes be the oral skills, so the students work without using the

writing step of the structure.

3. Round table: This structure is usually used for teambuilding, mastery, thinking,

communication, and information sharing. In teams, students take turns generating written

responses, solving problems, or making a contribution to the team project. They take turns

writing on one piece of paper or completing a task. Every member in the team has to do

part of the task and the others keep following to help and correct when this is needed. Every

team member can use a different coloured pencil to show what everyone' contribution.

4. Round Robin: This structure is usually used for mastery, thinking, and communication.

The students are given a question or a topic which require multiple answers. Each student

should provide an answer or part of the topic orally, taking about the same amount of timefor each student. When a member of the team has a difficulty, students coach him. Students

have the right to provide constructive criticism if necessary, and, of course, praise and

encourage good work.

- Targeted Social Skills:

30


25/54

According to research, all the above KCS have the potential to build quite a good number

of social skills. Among the following social skills:

Patience, giving others time to work, coaching skills, Asking for help, offering help, giving

and accepting praise, giving and accepting constructive criticism, working with appropriate

noise level, active listening, the researcher chose only four skills to focus on during this

study which are: 1. Active listening, 2. giving and accepting constructive criticism, 3.

working with appropriate noise level, 4. Offering and asking for help.

The program was implemented as planned in the three grade levels. More help was needed

in grade four and some activities needed to be simplified. Some changes were made to the

planned activities based on the students' remarks during the activities and the researcher's

field notes. By the third week the students took the post-test, and then the questionnaire was

distributed. The researcher had to be available with the students to explain the items of the

questionnaire. The interview was done on the next day and the students were given enough

time to think and respond to the stated questions.

Chapter IV: Results and discussion:

The hypotheses of this study were that the use of KCS would yield higher achievement

results in oral and communication skills as well as make the class work more interesting

and the students more motivated to learn. Also it was hypothesized that KCS would help

students improve socially and academically.

This study is intended to investigate the effects of KCS in promoting learners achievement

in oral skills, enhancing the classroom environment in a way that makes it more interesting

and motivating to learning English. The study did not yield statistically very significant

differences between the pre test and post test of the written test of grade 5 and 6, and

statistically more significant differences in oral post test. However, it did indicate that KCS

are more effective than regular classical instruction in building social skills, and improving

the classroom environment and motivation towards learning EFL of UAE upper primary

students. This verifies findings of many researchers(Cohen, et al, 1990; Johnson and

Johnson, 1989; Johnson, Johnson, & Smith, 1991; Miller and Harrington, 1990; Ochi and

Sugie, 2001; Slavin and Cooper, 1999) who have found the results of cooperative learning

to build more positive peer relationships, and improve students' self esteem and academic

31


26/54

achievement. The findings of this study also suggest that working cooperatively in pairs, in

groups can build better interpersonal relations and reduce tension and feeling of alienation

especially when cooperative learning is used at the beginning of the year. Every member in

a group has a role to play, so he feels how important he is to others, and how others are

important to him since they all have the same group task to complete. Working towards

achieving the same goal by a group gives feeling of responsibility, belonging, and loyalty to

the group as a whole and consequently leads to better relations with the group members.

The findings of this study reveal that academic achievement is not the most significant

among other gains of cooperative learning, as proven in many studies. So, teachers who

wish to focus only on academic results, rather than academic results as well as the

psychological health of students and positive interpersonal relationships, may be

uninterested in the approach (Nakagawa, 2003).

IV.1. Results of quantitative analysis: pre-test and post-test

The results of pre test and post test were analyzed using T-test for the thirty participants and

Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test was used in analyzing every grade level's results.

IV.1.A. T-test

Table IV.1 presents the analysis results of T-test of sample response between the oral and

written pre & post tests of the whole participants (30 students). The data in Table 1 show

there are statistically significant differences at ( = 0.05) in both written & oral tests in

favour of post tests. It also reveals higher differences in the oral post test (t = -5.795)

compared to the written post test (t = -3.947).

Table IV.1: T-test results of sample response between pre & post tests

Mean NStd.

Deviationt df Sig. (2-tailed)

Pair1

Written pre-test 57.47 30 11.655 -3.947 29 .000Written post-test 63.87 30 11.640

Pair2

Oral pre-test 75.83 30 9.392 -5.795 29 .000

Oral post-test 79.37 30 8.572

IV.1.B. Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test

Table IV.2 shows:

32


27/54

- There are no statistically significant differences at ( = 0.05) between written pre test

and post tests.

- There are statistically significant differences at ( = 0.05) between pre & post oral

tests in favour of post test.

Table IV.2: Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test of Grade 4 pre and post-test results

Ranks N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Written pre-test -

Written post-test

Negative Ranks 2(a) 6.50 13.00

Positive Ranks 6(b) 3.83 23.00

Ties 2(c)Total 10

Oral pre-test -Oral post-test

Negative Ranks 1(d) 2.00 2.00

Positive Ranks 9(e) 5.89 53.00

Ties 0(f)

Total 10

a. Written post-test < Written pre-test b. Written post-test > Written pre-testc. Written post-test = Written pre-test d. Oral post-test < Oral pre-teste. Oral post-test > Oral pre-test f. Oral post-test = Oral pre-test

Table IV.3 shows:

- There are statistically significant differences at ( = 0.05) between pre & post writtentests in favour of post test.



Table IV.3: Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test of Grade 5pre and post-test resultsRanks N Mean Rank Sum of Ranks

Written pre-test -

Written post-test

Negative Ranks 0)a( .00 .00

Positive Ranks 7)b( 4.00 28.00

Ties 3)c(Total 10

Oral pre-test -

Oral post-test

Negative Ranks 0)d( .00 .00

Positive Ranks 9)e( 5.00 45.00

Ties 1)f(

Total 10a. Written post-test < Written pre-test b. Written post-test > Written pre-testc. Written post-test = Written pre-test d. Oral post-test < Oral pre-teste. Oral post-test > Oral pre-test f. Oral post-test-test = Oral pre-test-test

33


28/54

Table IV.4 shows:

- There are statistically significant differences at ( = 0.05) between pre & post written




Table IV.4: Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test of Grade 6 pre and post-test results

Ranks NMean

Rank

Sum of

Ranks

Written pre-test -

Written post-test

Negative Ranks 2(a) 1.50 3.00

Positive Ranks 7(b) 6.00 42.00

Ties 1(c)Total 10

Oral pre-test -

Oral post-test

Negative Ranks 1(d) 1.50 1.50

Positive Ranks 9(e) 5.94 53.50

Ties 0(f)

Total 10

a. Written post-test < Written pre-testb. Written post-test > Written pre-testc. Written post-test = Written pre-testd. Oral post-test < Oral pre-teste. Oral post-test > Oral pre-testf. Oral post-test = Oral pre-test

In general, there was considerable improvement in post test results compared to pre test

results in oral skills and less improvement in written post test results for grade five and six

and no improvement in written post test for grade four.

IV.2: Results of qualitative analysis:

IV.2.A: Student's questionnaire

The number of points in the table of Student's Questionnaire are the result of the number of

frequencies of the students responses multiplied by the number of points allotted for eachresponse as follows: Strongly agree = 5 points, Agree = 4 points, undecided = 3 points,

Disagree = 2 points, Strongly disagree = 1 point.

34


29/54

Table IV. 5: Student's Questionnaire Results

No 5 4 3 2 1

1) Communication Skills

1 I listen to, and respect the ideas of others. 130 16 0 0 0

2 I share the load of work 70 64 0 0 0

3 I value the contributions of the other members of the group 125 20 0 0 0

4 I resolve conflicts in a positive manner 105 32 3 0 0

5I try to help each member of my group do his set piece ofwork

50 80 0 0 0

6Working in groups helps me interact with and talk to othergroup members than before

75 48 3 0 0

2) Achievement

7 I do my best to achieve success for the group 125 12 6 0 0

8I help the group find errors and/or mistakes and correctthem

100 32 3 2 0

9 It has helped me to understand the subject better. 60 10 21 2 0

10I share my information, and take into account the

information of others125 12 3 2 0

11 I help in seeking solutions; I am suggestive. 45 44 9 0 1

12Cooperation among members gives a lot of knowledge

compared to working alone.100 20 9 4 0

3) Motivation and Classroom Environment

13 I enjoy working in a group. 75 52 6 0 1

14 This way of learning is better than individual work. 105 20 3 6 0

15 Competing with other groups is an enjoyable experience 90 20 3 8 2

16 I feel enthusiastic to contribute to the group work 96 16 3 0 1

17 This way of teaching has reduced troubles among students 30 32 42 2 1

18Working in different groups allows me to build goodrelations with more classmates

45 64 9 2 1

The student's questionnaire, which was divided into three main categories; communication

skills, achievement, and motivation and classroom environment, has revealed quite

interesting results about the greatest impact of KCS. It is clear form the chart below that the

communication skills' gains were significant compared to achievement and motivation and

classroom environment. It seems that achievement is not the most significant factor in

cooperative learning gains. Many studies have even proved that cooperative learning has

35


30/54

680

700

720

740

760

780

800

820

840

Student's Questionnaire

1) Communication Skills

2) Achievement

3) Motivation and Classroom

Environment

less impact on students' achievement compared to individualistic or competitive learning.

Yet, I believe, its impact on students' achievement is not direct or immediate. The positive

impacts of cooperative learning are interrelated and support each other; more motivation on

the side of the student, with better classroom environment, I believe, can lead to greater

gains in students' achievement, which in turn lead to much better classroom environment

and more motivation and so on.

Student's Questionnaire's 3 main categories Chart

In the first category, communication skills, students' responses showed high scores in

listening to each others and respecting others' ideas. This shows the immediate impact of

cooperative learning on the students' personalities and the way they treat others, and how

they want others to treat them. Resolving conflicts in a positive manner also was of big

score which reveals deep understanding of the essence of cooperative learning; everyone

has his own point of view and understanding of certain concepts, and by means of

discussion and negotiation they can reach a unified, one agreed upon answer.

The results of the second category of the questionnaire reveal less certainty about the

effectiveness of KCS in improving achievement for some students. These responses can be

explained by the limited period of the program implementation. Although most studentswere engaged to a high degree in the KCS, and played their roles, based on the field notes,

it was clear that making the highest gains of the KCS needs more time and practice.

Moreover, in the first week of implementation many students were highly energetic and

enthusiastic to the extent that some low achieving students found it very difficult to coop

and adapt to the nature of the new strategies. The teacher had to slow down the pace of the

36


31/54

activities and give enough time for every activity to be well practiced. Some low achieving

students considered the participation in such activities an achievement although sometimes

they were trained by their group members to repeat given statements or parrot what they

hear from others.

Some impacts of cooperative learning could be censored by the researcher but can hardly

be measured using quantitative and qualitative research in relatively short period of time

with young learners; like the development in character due to paradigm change in the way

of thinking, the ability of learning from and working with others, and self esteem.

IV.2.B: Student's interview

Table IV.6: Student's Interview Results

37

EDCBAInterview QuestionsNo

Very negativeNegativeundecidedPositiveVery PositiveOverall, how positive were yourcooperative learning experiences?1

0%0%3.33%63.33%33.33%

stronglydisagree

disagreeundecidedagreestrongly agreeWhen working in cooperativelearning groups or teams youusually find yourself in the position

of leader.

2

6.66%0%0%0%93.33%

Very difficultdifficultUnsureEasyVery easyHow easy or difficult has it been for

you to communicate your thoughtsor opinions to the group?

30%0%40%33.33%26.66%

stronglydisagree

disagreeundecidedAgreestrongly agreeDid you enjoy workingcooperatively with other students?

4

0%0%0%46.66%53.33%

stronglydisagree

disagreeundecidedAgreestrongly agreeCooperative learning has helped meunderstand course materials?

5

0%3.33%10%63.33%23.33%

strongly

disagreedisagreeundecidedAgreestrongly agree

I prefer courses that have acooperative learning component?

6

3.33%3.33%10%50%33.33%

strongly

disagreedisagreeundecidedAgreestrongly agree

In general, I got along well withother group members?7

0%3.33%20%53.30%23.33%

stronglydisagree

disagreeundecidedAgreestrongly agreeI care for achieving success for thegroup no matter what role I am

assigned?

8

0%6.66%10%23.33%60%

stronglydisagree

disagreeundecidedAgreestrongly agreeCooperative learning is helpful inlearning new useful skills?

9

00026.66%73.33%

stronglydisagree

disagreeundecidedagreestrongly agreeCooperative learning has helped meto learn to work effectively ingroups?

10

3.33%0026.66%70


32/54

The first question of the student interview revealed that about two thirds of the students

found this cooperative learning experience positive, and only 3.33 % couldn't decide or

express their opinion regarding this experience. The rest of the students, 33.33 %, found it

very positive. This means that most of them had a good experience during this study. They

expressed their wish to be able to practice the same and new similar activities all the year

long.

The second question about playing or practicing the role of leader was quite significant.

93.33 of the students found the new strategies of cooperative learning a great tool to enable

them play this role through coaching peers, helping others or even performing their

assigned tasks in administering the activities. The researcher's rationale behind this

question was to find out more about students' tendencies of taking or playing leadership

roles which shows the impact of CL on their personalities and observing how this would

affect their relationship in the classroom. It was noticed through observation that there was

considerable improvement in the students' interrelations and overall behaviour. Many of

them have shown that they can really be good responsible leaders in their groups. So, I

believe, having this great percentage of students finding themselves in the position of

leaders while working in groups shows their tendency to show better manners and

behaviours in the future, as well as higher motivation.

The third question revealed the uncertainty of about 40 of the students of their ability in

communicating their thoughts or opinions to the group although they had a lot to say during

the group discussions. One of the main reasons, according to the discussion with them,

might be their tendency to perfection as speakers of English and being shy to make errors.

Others find it very easy to speak in English although they commit a lot of errors in

pronunciation, grammar and even choice of right vocabularies. This shows the need for

more authentic activities and real life situations that enhance the students' abilities in

speaking and listening. Based on the class observations of the researcher during group

activities, it was clear that some students tend to use Arabic language to convey their

opinions and thoughts and switch to English in the presence of the teacher. This is quite

clear in grade four and less in grade five and six. After a discussion about this point with

38


33/54

the students it became clear that more input is needed before the students become ready to

start discussing a certain point or negotiating ideas in English.

Question number 4 revealed to what extent the students enjoyed working cooperatively

with other students. All of them either strongly agreed or agreed to this statement which

shows the need of those students to have a wide variety of such activities in the classroom

to avoid boredom and monotony of doing the same procedures with the same activities

repeatedly. The students explained that they could learn the new concepts in an enjoyable

way that they did not notice how much time they spent on some activities. Some of them

wished they could have more English classes a day to have more "fun time".

In question 5, about 25% of the students strongly agreed and about 64% agreed that thenew strategies of cooperative learning strategies helped them to a great extent understand

the given material during the implementation period. Only 10%were not able to decide

whether those new strategies helped them understand the new material or not. Through the

discussion with the students during the interview, most of them explained how things

became easier for them to acquire with the help of their group mates. They feel that being

able to discuss some issues in a group or being helped by a peer in the group has a positive

impact that makes them feel more comfortable to ask and seek information.

In the sixth question, more than 83% expressed their desire of having cooperative learning

activities in their learning. They showed great interest in the new strategies. In the

discussion during the interview, they talked about the possibility of having the same

strategies in other subjects. They think they would like other subjects if they were taught in

the same way. Some of them even suggested if teachers of other subjects could be told and

convinced to keep the same classroom seating and use similar activities with them.

Question 7 reveals that more than three quarters of the students could get along with other

group members. 20% of them were not able to give clear response whether it was easy for

them to get along with other group members or not. In general, the discussion with the

students gave good reasons for why some of them had this feeling of uncertainty. It was

clear in their responses that it was not easy for them to adapt to the new strategy in just

three weeks. Some of them showed a feeling of uneasiness to be challenged and active most

39


34/54

of the time. I believe the nature of those students and their level of English plays an

important role in their way of thinking.

In this question 60% of the students showed great acceptance in doing their assigned tasks

no matter what their roles in the group are. Achieving success for the group for them is

more important than thinking of what roles they should be assigned. They showed readiness

and obedience/ for the sake of the group success though some of them had the desire and

competency to play leadership roles to guide the group. 10% were undecided about the

stated point and they interpreted this uncertainty by their poor communication skills in

English. However, those students showed enthusiasm and pleasure by the end of some

activities when their groups achieved success. These feeling, I believe, can be a good

motivation for them in the future to play their assigned roles and do their tasks with more

help and encouragement from the side of the teacher and group members.

Questions 9 and 10 gave almost the same percentages. In the ninth question about three

fourths of the students strongly agreed that this experience of cooperative learning helped

them gain some new useful skills. Through the discussion with them, they showed

awareness of the cooperative learning structures' nature. They explained how they had to be

completely cooperating, listening, helping, negotiating, tutoring, coaching, and playing

assigned roles to achieve success for their groups. They learned how to take turns and

respect each other's opinion. They started to develop the sense of sharing and exchanging

opinions politely with minimum noise occurrence. This experience helped them develop the

sense of responsibility and ownership of achievement and acknowledging each group

member in that achievement. They started to learn how to comment, correct, help, ask for

help, and accept criticism. In the tenth question most students strongly agreed that

cooperative learning had helped them to work effectively in groups. They commented on

some negative aspects of some cooperative learning structures, especially in the first two

weeks; when some students were unable to abide by the rules of the activities, and others

who did not take those activities seriously enough to achieve the given tasks. In the third

week there was a slight improvement in those students' behaviour.

In their answers to the eleventh question: "What did you like most about working in a

group?" the following responses were collected:

40


35/54

working with my friends collaboratively

Respecting each other in the team

Sharing ideas with my team members

Helping team members

The variety of given answers and ideas

Speaking English freely without feeling shy

Acquiring new useful skills

It helps weak students get involved in all activities

It helps me know more about my group members and have good relations

with them

Improving my oral skills in English

Some of the students' most significant responses to the last question, "Do you have any

disadvantages of working in a group?" were the following:

Sometimes only one or two in the team do the whole work and the others

talk to each other

Some students speak in Arabic and do not abide by the rules

some students do not take turns while working on an activity

Sometimes the class becomes very noisy during team discussions

Some students do not do their assigned roles

In general, although the participants of the study are young learners, they showed quite

good understanding of the work they have been doing during the implementation of the

program. They could trace the weaknesses and strengths of the program which made the

researcher take their notes into consideration. The researcher made some modifications

during the implementation phase based on some students' feedback, whether these remarks

were given orally or on feedback form. Many of them were fully engaged in the new

strategies and showed sense of responsibility towards the program as a whole.

IV.3: Conclusion

41


36/54

The results of this study add to the literature on using KCS in EFL educational settings in

the Arab world. They proved the potential of KCS in enhancing peer relationships,

improving communication skills, and helping build a more motivating and encouraging

classroom environment for English learning.

The findings also reveal a number of remarks that should be taken into consideration in

similar studies in the future. First, it is recommended that such a study be prolonged for a

longer time, one semester or even two semesters, to give the participants enough time to

use KCS more skillfully and become more proficient and experienced. The accumulated

experience in using KCS during a semester or an entire year might yield more accurate

results. Due to time limitations of this program, the students had to join their groups

immediately after the pre-test and they did not have enough time to know each other well.

Second, teaching the KCS and needed social skills before the implementation of the

program can be more practical and beneficial for the participants. The researcher gave just

a brief idea about the rules and procedures of the activities which sometimes caused

misunderstanding and chaos at the beginning of some activities. The researcher

recommends that the teacher who would apply such activities of cooperative learning to

spend quite enough time on demonstrating these activities along with posters or signs

around the classroom or on the desks explaining the rules of the activities and the required

group behaviors.

Third, a larger number of participants, with both genders, could lead to more precise results

and divulge more advantages and disadvantages of using KCS.

Fourth, more research is needed to determine which of the many KCS are the most

motivating, encouraging and beneficial for upper primary learners.

Fifth, the impact of using KCS on classroom environment was observed but so limited due

to the nature of the young learners of the study whose behavior is still under control and

could be handled or treated by some efforts, so further research is needed to investigate its

impact on older learners of English in schools of boys, girls and coeducation.

42


37/54

Further research is also needed to study the prerequisites which make KCS more effective.

It is also beneficial to investigate the effects of other methods of cooperative learning on

the EFL students' oral skills, motivation and achievement.

Lastly, applying KCS in other school subjects could yield better results as the students and

teachers will work towards their goals in all subjects using the same strategies.

References

Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, Inc.

Burton, D and Bartlett, S (2004) Practitioner Research for Teachers. London: PCP.

Celce-Murica, M. 2001. Teaching English as a second or Foreign Language. Boston, MA:

Heinle & Heinle.

Cohen, E.G., Lotan, L. & Catanzarite, L. (1990). Treating status problems in the

cooperative classroom. In S. Sharan, (Ed.). Cooperative learning: theory and research. pp.203-230. Wesport: Praeger.

Diaz-Rico, L., & Weed, K. (Eds.). (2002). The Crosscultural, Language, And Academic

Development Handbook A complete K-12 Reference Guide (2 nd ed.). Boston : Pearson

Education Group, Inc.

Eggen, P., Jacobsen, D., Kauchak, D. (2006) Methods for Teaching: Promoting Student

Learning in K-12 Classrooms. Prentice Hall: New Jersey.

Fischer, J. (1996). Open to ideas: Developing a framework for your research. InG. Burnaford, J. Fischer & D. Hobson (Eds.), Teachers doing research:

Practical possibilities (pp. 33-50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Good, T.; Slavings, R.; Harel, K.; & Emerson, H

Documents

Minor Research Full Draft Part2