A study of perception of teachers and students toward ...
82
A STUDY OF PERCEPTION OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS TOWARD COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN AN ENGLISH COURSE AT A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN THAILAND BY MS. KAN PIWCHAI A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH FOR CAREERS LANGUAGE INSTITUTE THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY ACADEMIC YEAR 2015 COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
Transcript of A study of perception of teachers and students toward ...
A STUDY OF PERCEPTION OF TEACHERS AND
STUDENTS TOWARD COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN
AN ENGLISH COURSE AT A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN
THAILAND
BY
MS. KAN PIWCHAI
A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH FOR CAREERS
LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2015
COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
A STUDY OF PERCEPTION OF TEACHERS AND
STUDENTS TOWARD COOPERATIVE LEARNING IN
AN ENGLISH COURSE AT A PRIVATE SCHOOL IN
THAILAND
BY
MS. KAN PIWCHAI
A THESISSUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS IN ENGLISH FOR CAREERS
LANGUAGE INSTITUTE
THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
ACADEMIC YEAR 2015
COPYRIGHT OF THAMMASAT UNIVERSITY
(1)
Thesis Title A STUDY OF PERCEPTION OF TEACHERS AND
STUDENTS TOWARD COOPERATIVE
LEARNING IN AN ENGLISH COURSE AT A
PRIVATE SCHOOL IN THAILAND
Author Ms.KanPiwchai
Degree Master of Arts
Major Field/Faculty/University English for Careers
Language Institute
Thammasat University
Thesis Advisor Assoc. Prof. SucharatRimkeeratikul, Ph. D.
Academic Year 2015
ABSTRACT
This study is entitled “A Study of the Perception of Teachers and
Students toward Cooperative Learning in an English Course at a Private School in
Thailand”. The purpose of this study was 1) to examine the perception of students
about Cooperative Learning for studying in an English course, 2) to examine the
perception of teachers about Cooperative Learning for teaching an English course, 3)
to compare the the test results between a class that used Cooperative Learning
(STAD) and a class that did not use Cooperative Learning (STAD).
The participants of this study were students in year 11 in the first
semester of the 2015 academic year at a private school in Loei province. They were
selected by using purposive sampling method because in one classroom STAD was
used (54 students) and in the other classroom STAD was not used (54 students).
The instruments used in this study were a questionnaire to investigate the
perception of students toward Cooperative Learning (STAD), an interview with two
teachers from the two classrooms about their teaching using Cooperative Learning
(STAD), and also midterm scores from the two classrooms to help make the
comparison. These students have similar abilities regarding learning English. They
were taught with the same content over seventeen weeks for 50 minutes per period.
(2)
The data was analyzed by using a t-test and the interview contents were analyzed
based on the themes of the answers from the two teachers.
The research results revealed that Cooperative Learning (STAD) is very
helpful and beneficial to students and teachers in the English course. They showed
the positive perception of students and teachers toward Cooperative Learning
(STAD) and they were very satisfied with this innovation in the teaching and
learning of English in Thai society.
Keywords:Cooperative Learning (STAD), Perception, English Teaching-Learning,
Private School
(3)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wish to express my gratitude and appreciation to my adviser, Assoc.
Prof. SucharatRimkeeratikul Ph.D., for her guidance and assistance which was so
essential to the completion of this study. I deeply appreciate her ways of
‘empowerment’, which made me confident to express my opinions with her
throughout this study. Her exceptional kindness and understanding has encouraged
me to finish this project successfully in the face of various challenges.
I would like to thank the following people for whom I have deepest
appreciation:
I would like to express special gratitude to Assoc. Prof.
SupongTangkiengsirisin, Ph.D. and Dr. TunyalukAnekjumnongporn for their support
and guidance as committee members of my thesis.
I feel sincerely grateful to my sister, the school and the participants who
were willing to share their valuable answers in this study. Moreover, I appreciate the
atmosphere of friendship occurring during the period of data collection.
My friends, Mr. Harry Arthor and Mr. Dominic Proctor, who always
kindly corrected my English used in this thesis. Their patience is greatly appreciated.
Moreover, special thanks to all the instructors who taught me in Language
Institute Thammasat University, I have applied what I have learned from them to
complete this research study. In addition, I would like to thank all the academic staff
at LITU and all my classmates for their friendly and helpful support.
I certainly will not forget to thank my mother, father and my family who
always support me. They are always by my side.
Any worthiness or benefits generated from this study shall be credited to
those whom I mentioned earlier. Without their encouraging support and sacrifices,
this study could not have been possible.
Ms. KanPiwchai
(4)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………. (1)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………………. (3)
LIST OF TABLES……………………………………………………………… (9)
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………. 1
1.1 Background of the study…………………………………………... 1
1.2 Research questions………………………………………………… 2
1.3 Objectives of the study…………………………………………….. 3
1.4 Scope of the study…………………………………………………. 3
1.5 Significance of the study………………………………………….. 3
1.6 Definition of terms………………………………………………... 4
1.7 Limitations of the study…………………………………………… 4
1.8 Summary………………………………………………………….. 4
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………………… 5
2.1 Relevant Concepts and Theories……………………………........... 5
2.1.1 Definition of Cooperative Learning………………………….. 5
2.1.2 History of Cooperative Learning……………………….......... 6
2.1.3 The Cooperative Learning Concepts………………………… 7
2.1.4 Methods Used in Cooperative Learning……………………... 8
(5)
2.1.4.1 STAD……………………………………………. 8
2.1.4.2 TGT……………………………………………… 9
2.1.4.3 Jigsaw…………………………………………… 9
2.1.4.4 Circles of Learning……………………………… 9
2.1.4.5 Group Investigation……………………………... 9
2.1.4.6 Complex Instruction…………………………….. 9
2.1.4.7 TAI………………………………………………. 9
2.1.4.8 Think-Pair-Share…………………………............ 9
2.1.5 The Components of Cooperative Learning……………............ 10
2.1.5.1 Positive Interdependence……………………….. 10
2.1.5.2 Individual Accountability………………………. 11
2.1.5.3 Group Processing, ……………………………… 11
2.1.5.4 Social Skills……………………………………. 11
2.1.5.5 Face-to-Face…………………………………… 11
2.1.6 Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) Strategy……… 11
2.1.7 The Role of the Teacher in Cooperative Learning………….... 11
2.1.8 The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students…….............. 12
2.1.9 The Benefits and the Limitations of…………………………… 15
Cooperative Learning
2.1.10 The Perception of Students …………………………………. 16
and Teachers on Cooperative Learning
2.2 Relevant Previous Studies…………………………………………… 18
CHAPTER 3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY………………………………. 28
3.1 Participants………………………………………………………… 28
3.2 Materials…………………………………………………………… 28
3.2.1 Questionnaire………………………………………………… 28
3.2.2 Teachers’ Interviews………………………………………….. 29
3.2.3 The Midterm Scores………………………………………….. 29
3.3 Procedures………………………………………………………… 29
3.3.1 Research Design……………………………………………. 29
(6)
3.3.2 Data Collection……………………………………………... 29
3.4 Data Analysis……………………………………………………. 30
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS ……………………..…………………………….. 31
Part 1 General Background …………………………………………. 31
Part 2 Cooperative Learning Experience………………………….. . 32
Part 3 Perception of Students toward Cooperative Learning…….... 33
4.1.1 RQ1: What is the perception of Students toward
Cooperative Learning in Studying in an English Course?
Part 4 Open – Ended questions……………………………………... 35
Part 5 Perception of teachers toward Cooperative Learning………… 36
4.1.2 RQ2: What is the perception of Teachers toward
Cooperative Learning in Teaching an English Course?
Part 6 The difference of learning and teaching efficiency…………… 38
4.1.3 RQ3: What is the difference between the test
results of the students in the class that used
Cooperative Learning (STAD) and those that did not
use Cooperative Learning (STAD)?
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND………………………… 40
RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary of the study…………………………………………..…. 40
5.1.1 Objective of the study…………………….…………….…….. 40
5.1.2 Participants, Materials, and Procedures……………………… 40
5.1.2.1 Participant…………………………………………….. 40
5.1.2.2 Materials………………………………………………. 40
5.1.2.3 Procedures……………………………………………... 40
5.2 Summary of the findings………………………………………….. 41
5.2.1 Background information of the participants………………… 41
5.2.2 Cooperative Learning experience…………………………… 41
(7)
5.2.3 Perception of students toward Cooperative Learning………. 42
5.2.3.1 How do students perceive Cooperative…………… …. 42
Learning
5.2.3.2 What is the attitude of students about…………… …. 42
Cooperative Learning
5.2.3.3 How does the Cooperative Learning enhance……. …. 42
student work
5.2.4 The perception of students about the advantages of……... ….. 42
Cooperative Learning
5.2.5 The perception of students about the ……………………. 42
disadvantages of Cooperative Learning
5.2.6 The perception of students about the reasons…………… 43
that make students feel uncomfortable to learn
using Cooperative Learning
5.2.7 The perception of students about the barriers of……….. 43
Cooperative Learning in the class
5.2.8 Perception of teachers toward Cooperative Learning….. 44
5.2.8.1 How Cooperative Learning helps the students……. 44
5.2.8.2 The barriers that the teachers have to cope with….. 44
when they apply Cooperative Learning
5.2.8.3 Application of Cooperative Learning ….............. 44
in the future
5.3 DISCUSSION…………………………………………………….. 45
5.3.1 The Perception of Students about……………………. 45
Cooperative Learning for Learning in an English Course
5.3.2 The Perception of Teachers about Cooperative……… 46
Learning for Learning an English Course
5.3.2.1. How Cooperative Learning helps…………. 46
the students
5.3.2.2. The barriers that the teachers have to……… 47
cope with when they apply Cooperative Learning
5.3.2.3. Application of Cooperative Learning……… 48
(8)
in the future
5.3.3 The difference between the test results of the………... 49
students in the class that used Cooperative Learning (STAD)
and those that did not use Cooperative Learning (STAD)
5.4 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………. 49
5.5 IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY……………………………......... 50
5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE FURTHER STUDY…………. 50
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………... 52
APPENDICES…………………………………………………………………. 58
APPENDIX A…………………………………………………………. 59
APPENDIX B…………………………………………………………. 64
APPENDIX C…………………………………………………………. 69
APPENDIX D…………………………………………………………. 70
BIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………………. 71
LIST OF TABLES
Tables Page
4.1 Gender………………………………………………………………….. 32
4.2 English Score…………………………………………………………… 32
4.3 Cooperative Learning Experience……………………………………… 32
4.4 Cooperative Learning Experience……………………………………… 33
4.5 How do students perceived about Cooperative Learning……………… 33
4.6 What is the attitude of students about Cooperative Learning…………. 34
4.7 How do the Cooperative Learning enhances student work…………… 34
4.8 Mean Comparison of midterm test scores……………………………… 38 4.9 Paired Samples t-test……………………………………………………. 38
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Globalization and technology are rapidly changing the world; schools need to
provide effective education for students who are going to face challenges that this
change will bring. Students need to be able to solve the problems. The traditional
education style might not match with teachers and students of the modern world.
Students of the new era might not want to be silent, listen and do whatever teachers
tell them to do. Students have no chance to talk or respond. Furthermore, there is little
interaction between students in the classroom. Globalization has changed society;
therefore, it may be necessary to change the teaching and learning methodology in
schools in order to ensure students get the knowledge which can be adapted in their
daily life.
In order to improve student achievement, schools need to recognize the
effectiveness of modern teaching methods that could improve outcomes for students.
One possible learning-teaching method is Cooperative Learning (Slavin, 1995).
Cooperative Learning was introduced to teachers many years ago; however, it has not
taken hold in Thailand. Cooperative Learning encourage a small group of students
who work together to complete a task, solve a problem and encourage each other to
communicate their ideas in order to improve academic achievement, motivation, self-
confidence and behavior (Artzt and Newman 1999). Cooperative Learning can also
benefit the students by enabling them to learn from social interaction with each other
and their teachers. It uses many strategies to promote activities, participation and
interaction among small groups of students, improving their learning outcomes.
To prove that Cooperative Learning is suitable for Thai students, it is
necessary to examine the perception of students and teachers. It tends to be difficult to
analyze perception of Cooperative Learning because the knowledge of Cooperative
Learning is very diverse among the educational community. However, simply
arranging the classroom for students to work together in small groups and
encouraging them to express their ideas allows teachers to enable students to increase
2
proficiency in their learning and demonstrate Cooperative Learning. A benefit of
implementing Cooperative Learning is helping students to be confident to work
together, support each other to solve problems and improve perceptions of
Cooperative Learning.
Johnson et al. (1984) stated that there are many techniques for Cooperative
Learning. They are Think-Pair-Share, jigsaw, group investigation, and STAD. Arends
(1997) found that Robert Slavin and his colleagues at John Hopkins University
created the Student Team Achievement Division (STAD). This methodology is
designed to give all learners opportunities to interact and learn, further it is helpful for
the teachers, educationalists and academics.
In order to assist Thai high school students to be successful in working
together and completing tasks, it is important to evaluate the best strategy before
implementing it. Even though I currently work in the purchasing department at the
school, because I work in an educational setting, I am interested in Cooperative
Learning (STAD). I heard about a private school using this method of teaching with
their students and I also have an ambition to be a teacher in the near future. Therefore,
I would like to compare the traditional education style and the modern style of
Cooperative Learning (STAD) and evaluate the best strategies to implement them for
good Cooperative Learning. As a result, the research study entitled ‘Perceptions of
Teachers and Students toward Cooperative Learning in an English course at a Private
School in Thailand’ was conducted.
1.2 RESEACH QUESTIONS
This study aims to answer the following questions:
1.2.1 What is the perception of students toward Cooperative Learning for
studying in an English course ?
1.2.2 What is the perception of teachers toward Cooperative Learning for
teaching an English course?
1.2.3 What is the difference between the test results of the students in the class
that used Cooperative Learning (STAD) and those that did not use Cooperative
Learning (STAD)?
3
1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
This research has the following objectives:
1.3.1 To examine the perception of students toward Cooperative Learning for
studying in an English course.
1.3.2 To examine the perception of teachers toward Cooperative Learning for
teaching an English course.
1.3.3 To compare the difference between the test results of the students in the
class that used Cooperative Learning (STAD) and those that did not use Cooperative
Learnin (STAD)?
1.4 SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The participants in this study were limited to only students and teachers of two
classrooms of the first year of high school in academic years 2014 - 2015 at a private
school in Thailand. The sample is composed of 54 students.
The respondents are students from year 11 studying English using Cooperative
Learning (STAD) and fourth year students studying English using a traditional style
of teaching.
1.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study is significant in several aspects as follows:
1.5.1 The finding of the study can be beneficial for English instructors to
develop interaction with students and encourage students by implementing the
information and suggestions of the study.
1.5.2 The results of the study can be helpful for students to understand the
benefits and weak points of the use of Cooperative Learning (STAD) strategy in
learning English.
1.5.3 The research will reveal the perception of teachers and students toward
Cooperative Learning, which can be helpful for future students in the classroom.
1.5.4 To prove the effectiveness of using Cooperative Learning in the
classroom.
4
1.6 DEFINITIONS OF TERMS
The definitions of the terms used in this study were adapted from the review of
literature. Five operating terms were defined as follows.
1.6.1 The perception of teachers and students refers to the awareness and
attitude of teachers and students toward Cooperative Learning.
1.6.2 Cooperative Learning refers to the strategy which could help students
complete tasks in the classroom by helping one another.
1.6.3 Students refers to the year 11 students at a private school, Loei province
in Thailand.
1.6.4 Teachers refers to the teachers who teach the students in year 11 (group
1 and 2) at a private school in Loei province in Thailand.
1.7 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
The scope of the study is limited to the use of Cooperative Learning (STAD
method) to the students in year 11 (54 students, from two classrooms at a private
school in Loei province in Thailand).
It is known that Cooperative Learning has many techniques, but in this
research the researcher limited it to the method of STAD only.
1.8 SUMMARY
Globalization and technology is rapidly changing the world; schools need to
provide effective means of education for students who are going to face the
challenges that this change will bring. Students need to be able to solve the problems
independently. The traditional teaching-learning style may not match the needs of
teachers and students of the modern world. In order to improve student achievement,
schools need to recognize the effectiveness of modern teaching methods which could
improve teaching-learning outcomes for students. To prove that Cooperative Learning
is suitable for Thai students, it is necessary to examine the perception of students and
teachers and to compare the learning outcome of the students in the class that used
Cooperative Learning (STAD) with those who were not using Cooperative Learning
(STAD). Therefore, I would like to compare the traditional education style and the
modern style of Cooperative Learning (STAD) and evaluate the best way of teaching
and learning in an English course at a private school in Thailand.
5
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
To ensure proper research design and the methodology in this study, the
researcher reviewed some relevant previous theories and studies undertaken by
academics looking at types of strategies which students and teachers use in the class
effectively, and looked at the perception of teachers and students to a Cooperative
Learning method in an English course at a school. This chapter, therefore, reviewed
the literature in two main parts. They are 1) relevant concepts and theories in English
teaching, and 2) relevant previous research.
2.1 RELEVANT CONCEPTS AND THEORIES
Most relevant concepts and theories presented below mainly deal with the
definition of Cooperative Learning, the history of Cooperative Learning, the
Cooperative Learning concepts, methods used in Cooperative Learning, the
components of Cooperative Learning, Student Team Achievement Division (STAD)
Strategy, the role of the teacher in Cooperative Learning, the effects of Cooperative
Learning on students and teachers, the benefits and the limitations of Cooperative
Learning, the perception of students and teachers to Cooperative Learning, traditional
teaching in Thailand, as well as the history of teaching English in Thailand.
2.1.1 Definition of Cooperative Learning
Jacobs &McCafferty (2006) stated that Cooperative Learning has been
proven that it is an effective teaching strategy for both teachers and students. It
encourages them to communicate with one another. Slavin (1995) also agreed that it
provided environments which encourage students to communicate and express their
ideas in a foreign language.
Yuan Ximing (2003) defined Cooperative Learning as a creative and
effective teaching model, it is not only attention to task interaction or group working,
but it also motivates students to participate in activities. Moreover, it is a strategy of
teaching to develop the ability of students to learn to meet their needs of learning
through group work. Johnson, et al. (1990) also agreed that Cooperative Learning is
an effective method of instruction showing that Cooperative Learning can be used
6
when we would like students learning to develop more in social skills. Johnson &
Johnson (2003) claimed that Cooperative Learning is a way for the students to learn to
share ideas by listening to each other and helping each other to solve problems. This
is similarly supported by Slavin (1995), describing that Cooperative Learning is a
form of small groups in which students set out to help each other solve a problem.
Cohen (1994) was also in agreement when he explained that
Cooperative Learning is socialization; students learn and work in small groups to
achieve a goal. Olsen &Kagan (1992) further agreed that learning in a cooperative
environment is the exchange of information between the students in groups, thus
encouraging communication. Slavin (1983) also agreed that it encourages students to
work together in small groups to produce group classwork. Relationships among
groups will lead to great achievement, as McCulloch (1985) pointed out that group
members help one another in a welcoming environment.
Slavin (1987) agreed that when students work towards a group’s goal,
the learning and the achievement will become valued by peers. The size of the group
is important too. Johnson & Johnson (1994) pointed out that the ideal size of the
group is dependent on the objectives of the lesson; it is up to the ages of students, it is
up to the experience of group’s working, the equipment and materials of the group,
and the time limitation for each lesson.
In conclusion the definition of Cooperative Learning is a teaching
strategy with all the benefits provided to both teachers and students. Students
exchange information among groups and help each other to solve problems.
Once the definition of Cooperative Learning is fully understood as a
teaching strategy, provided to both teachers and students, and the best educational
strategy, it then becomes necessary to examine the history of Cooperative Learning.
. 2.1.2 History of Cooperative Learning
This is intended to show the history of Cooperative Learning in
western countries. Aimin& Li & Zhou (2010) pointed out that in the year 1806;
Britain introduced the conception of the modern style Cooperative Learning into the
United States. It was widely used by American educators, e.g. Professor Dewey.
Researchers about Cooperative Learning are: Professor R.E. Slavin, at John Hopkins
University, the brothers, Professor D.W. Johnson and Professor R.T. Johnson, at the
7
University of Minnesota, Professor T.R. Guskey at the University of Kentucky,
Professor Cagan, at the University at California, and Y. Sharam and S. Sharan, at the
Tel Aviv University in Israel, who are all important representatives of Cooperative
Learning research.
Since the 1990s, new educational concepts of Cooperative Learning
have shown that it is obviously effective in improving the atmosphere in the
classroom and improving students’ performance. Over recent years, students learn
through communication between peers and also through personal study using work
groups to stimulate students’ interested in learning in an English course.
2.1.3 The Cooperative Learning Concepts
In this part, the researcher considered it necessary to present the
Cooperative Learning concepts. The first concept is learning together; Johnson &
Johnson (1999) explained that learning together is where the group members set the
goal, and respond to the teachers’ questions and then report on behalf of the group.
Students learn together in an atmosphere of collaboration. They get support from class
members to read, comprehend a text, write essays, and prepare for presentations.
The next model is Teams-Games-Tournaments (TGT) which Devries &
Edwards (1974) explained as when the teacher introduces the material in a class in
which students work together to complete worksheets, making sure that all team
members understand the material. At the end of the week, the winning teams will
compete together to earn points for the team. Finally, the members of each team
calculate the average improvement points earned. TGT is most appropriate for
teaching spelling in English courses.
Another concept is Student Teams - Achievement Division (STAD). Slavin
(1978) stated that students in STAD there are 4-5 students per group and following a
presentation of teachers. The students set the team up according to the level of
ability.Students do activities together in order to study together and to take care of
their learning of teammates. The success of STAD is to be able to have thegoals of the
teamand make the team members success. Norman (2005), Slavin (1977) and Nichols
(1996) indicated that STAD make the positive effect in achievement, percent of time-
on-task, liking of others, make the classmate support each other in the classroom.
Another model is Cooperative Learning structures, which Kagan
8
(1985) explained as a structure which can be used for team and class building,
communication, and critical thinking. It can be used to generate ideas for writing as
well as pre-reading techniques to build a reader’s background knowledge. It can be
used to review the work that students learned already to ensure that students have
achieved vocabulary, spelling etc. This can be used to be ensure that all students have
equal opportunity for participation.
Another concept is Jigsaw. Slavin (1995) stated that groups share
information with each other and it is suitable to teach English reading using the
following process:
1. Students receive a topic and read it.
2. Students discuss that topic within groups.
3. Students teach teammates.
4. Students take individual quizzes.
5. Team scores depend on team member’s scores.
The next concept is Think-Pair-Share. Lyman (1981) explained that it is a
teaching method that could support students to make the communication with other
students and develop the thinking as follows:
1. Teachers discuss the topic.
2. Teachers give time to students for thinking on their own.
3. Students work with partner to show the ideas.
4. Students share their ideas to others.
The above points imply that Cooperative Learning is the interactional
concept of language among students supported by group members who help on
another in many activities in the classroom to get confidence and achieve effective
learning in an English course. Next, are the methods used in Cooperative Learning.
2.1.4Methods Used in Cooperative Learning
Regarding the techniques used in Cooperative Learning, the method of
Cooperative Learning are as follows:
2.1.4.1Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD)Slavin (1995)
stated that “STAD involves competition among groups. Students are grouped
heterogeneously by ability, gender, race, and ethnicity. Students learn in teams and
take quizzes as individuals. Individual scores contribute to a group score. The points
9
contributed to the group are based on a student’s improvement over previous quiz
performance”.
2.1.4.2Teams Games Tournaments (TGT)Slavin (1995) explained
that Team Game Tournament (TGT) is similar to STAD except TGT use academic
games instead of quizzes. For the academic game which used in TGT, students from
different teams are placed in groups of three students to compare the abilities of each
other. Students will study and stay together in the teams for six weeks and the game
will be changed weekly.
2.1.4.3 Jigsaw Knight and Bohlmeyer (1990) explained that the
competition occurs between each team which were based on the performance of each
students. The scores are gained by team from each student to improve their
performance and relative to their performance on previous quizzes.
2.1.4.4 Circles of Learning Johnson and Johnson (1984) stated that
students work in 4-5 students which are at different ability. Students will receive the
rewards together. It emphasizes the team building and do the discussion within the
group to know how well they work together.
2.1.4.5 Group InvestigationSharan and Sharan (1992) explained that
the students set their group member by themselve, from 2-6 students then choose the
topics. These topics are narrowed to be the tasks of each group then presentsthe
findings to the class.
2.1.4.6 Complex InstructionSlavin (1995) stated that each student
is good at something that helps the group succeed. Complex instruction has been used
in bilingual schools in the different classes, especially for students who study
language.
2.1.4.7 Team Accelerated Instruction (TAI)Slavin (1995) explained
that students supporteach other to work hard to help their teams to succeed. The score
that counts is the final test,students take the final test without helping from their
teammates. Students have an equal opportunity for success because all have been
placed according to the prior of their knowledge.
2.1.4.8 Think – Pair – ShareSlavin (1995) explained that when the
teacherteach in the class, the student sits with partner within their teams. The teacher
asks the questions to the them.They are taught to think of an answer bythemselves,
10
thenshare their answer with their partners to reach the idea. Finally, the teacher asks
the pair to share their answers with the rest of the class.
After the methods of the Cooperative Learning were examined, the
researcher moved on to examine the components of Cooperative Learning.
2.1.5The Components of Cooperative Learning
Regarding the components of Cooperative Learning (STAD), there are
five important components which are relevant as follows:
2.1.5.1 Positive Interdependence, Ransdell (2003) explained that the
roles for each student are necessary for the group to work for the goal which is set by
the teacher. Each student has a specific role in the group. Webb (2002) describes that
the positive interdependence is the first and most important element in Cooperative
Learning.
Ghaith (2002) states that positive interdependence is a feeling of the
group members which if one succeeds, everybody succeeds, if one fails, everybody
fail. Group members realize that each member’s efforts benefit not only himself-
herself, but all other group members as well. Positive interdependence provides a
feeling of support within the group. Jacobs (2006) asserts that positive
interdependence is a perception among group members that can helps a group
member, and what hurts one group member it will hurt all. Positive interdependence
encourages the cooperation and a feeling of support.
Ross (2002) assumes that positive interdependence means the success
of other students. Andrusyk, et al. (2003) also adds that positive interdependence
occurs when students believe that the team cannot succeed unless every member of
the team succeeds. Arendale (2005) went further and said that positive
interdependence is established in the group through the different roles that support the
group moving to complete a goal.
McCloskey (2000) stated that positive interdependence makes learners
need one another to achieve. When one learner achieves, others benefit. Cooperative
Learning may be one way to support students within classrooms as learners work
together to maximize each other's learning through positive rather than negative
support. Positive social interdependence is working in small groups.
11
2.1.5.2 Individual Accountability
Ghaith (2002) indicated that individual accountability occurs when
each individual member feels happy to learn, to show their learning, and to contribute
to the learning of teammates. The purpose of Cooperative Learning is to make each
member a stronger individual in their own way.
2.1.5.3 Group Processing
Webb (2002) states that this element occurs when group members
discuss how well they are achieving their goals and maintaining effective working
relationships. The improvement of the process is working together and determining
how group effectiveness can be enhanced.
2.1.5.4 Social Skills
Webb (2002) defines social skills as group members knowing how to
provide effective leadership, decision-making, trust building, communication,
conflict-management, and being motivated to use the prerequisite skills. Ransdell
(2003), and Faryadi (2007) emphasize that the focus should be on the participants`
ability to share materials.
2.1.5.5 Face-to-Face Interaction
Web (2002) explained that the students do real work together, sharing
resources, helping, supporting, encouraging, and praising each other’s efforts to learn.
By this interaction, they promote each other’s success. Also Krantz (2003), and
Michiel et al. (2008) indicate that face-to-face interaction makes the students get the
opportunity to establish positive interactions and create behaviors which will benefit
the students as productive members of society.
The above explanation of social skills and face to face interaction by
Web (2002) indicated that social skills help students build skills in decision making,
conflict management, etc.
2.1.6Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) Strategy
Regarding the Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) Strategy,
the details which are relevant are as follows:
Robert Slavin (1978) and his colleagues at John Hopkins University
explained that Student Team Achievement Division (STAD) is the most extensively
researched of all Cooperative Learning methods and is very adaptable to a wide range
12
of subjects and grades. In STAD, students study with 4-5 members following a
teacher presentation. Teams are made up according to the academic abilities of the
students. STAD has been used in a wide variety of subjects, from math to language
arts to social studies.
Norman (2005) said that STAD is a way to organize classes with a
goal. The students work together to learn and to become responsible for their
teammates learning, as well as their own. STAD emphasizes having team goals and
success dependent on the learning of all group members.
STAD is a cooperative teaching method which was developed by
Slavin (1978), there are four or five students in each group of high, average and low
performing students. The steps of STAD are that teachers explain the material and
how to learn, then the team members study until they understand it, then teachers
combine the scores to create team scores. Finally, the team which wins the games will
receive a certificate.
Rai (2007), states that STAD is one of the many strategies in
Cooperative Learning, The reason for the selection of STAD is good interaction
among students, improved positive attitude towards the subject, better self-esteem and
increased interpersonal skills. Balfakih (2003), also states that because STAD helps
the students to meet the requirements of modern society by teaching them to work
with their colleagues STAD is a more effective teaching method than the traditional-
teaching method.
2.1.7 The Role of the Teacher in Cooperative Learning
Regarding the role of the teacher in Cooperative Learning, the details
which are relevant are as follows:
Brandt (2002) suggests that in Cooperative Learning, the role of the
teacher is to cooperate with the students to become the task setter. The teacher’s role
changes to a coach role. In this role, the teacher acts as the person who motivates the
students. The teachers provide the classroom with the ability to manage the progress
of each Cooperative Learning lesson.
Andrusyk, et al. (2003) report that the teacher’s role in a Cooperative
Learning lesson entails several components, such as placing the students into groups,
13
planning the lesson, explaining the academic task, monitoring the groups as they
progress through the task, and evaluating the quality of the work produced.
Yahya et al. (2002) state that teachers take several roles, first of all the
teachers make pre-instructional decisions about grouping students and then assigned
the appropriate tasks to students. Teachers have to be able to explain both the
academic task and the cooperative structure to students and then must monitor when
necessary. The teacher is also the one who is responsible for evaluating student,
learning and the effectiveness of each group's work. Teachers must create groups that
participate as much as they can, and use multiple-ability strategies. Teachers also need
to convince students of two things: 1) that different intellectual abilities are required
in Cooperative Learning, 2) that no one student has all of the abilities needed, but that
each member of the group will have some of the abilities.
Dohrn (2002) proposes some useful guidelines for teachers to follow
when creating cooperative groups such as:
• Groups should be limited to 4-6 members.
• Teams need to be diverse in nature.
• The group should be together long enough so that students can get to
know each other and experience group success.
• Start with activities that allow students to get to know each other.
• Create a team identity to encourage group cohesiveness.
• Clearly define rules, expectations and behavior.
• Establish rules that will encourage students to work well together.
• Remind students of the rules each time the groups change.
• Make the consequences for breaking the rules clear and check for
understanding.
• Create rules and jobs in order to complete the task given.
• Change roles to ensure equal opportunity of responsibility.
• Circulate and monitor behavior and watch for unwanted conflicts and
resolve them quickly.
It is the teacher's task to teach the students how to form cooperative
groups and to take the time necessary to introduce each management tactic and to
guide students in the practice of the tactic.
14
Erdal et al (2003) determined that teachers need to observe their
progress of the individuals or groups and providing appropriate assistance when it is
needed. Ransdellp (2003) asserts that the teacher in Cooperative Learning becomes a
stimulator, a guide, and one who support, but not one who teach.The teacher has
information for students in Cooperative Learning. The teacher is a helper and coach,
the teacher is motivated to assist students to be creative, to get the critical thought,
and solve problems.
Once the role of the teacher in Cooperative Learning is fully
understood, then it is necessary to examine the effect of Cooperative Learning on
students for greater understanding of Cooperative Learning.
2.1.8The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Students
Regarding the effects of Cooperative Learning on students, the details
which are relevant are as follows:
The researcher moves to the effects of Cooperative Learning on
students. This is intended to show that some effects of Cooperative Learning
discovered in the theories and previous research were considered and included when
the data collection of this research was developed.
Lie (2000) described that the effect of using Cooperative Learning in
classrooms is students get benefits such as high achievement, more positive
relationships and better psychological adjustment. Goldberg et al (2001) pointed out
that Cooperative Learning makes students get motivated for doing well in school;
students with poor motivation are bored in school and have poor relations with their
teachers.
Ghaith (2003) mentioned that the effects of the learning together
on English courses as a foreign language is self-esteem and the feelings of interaction
with one another. Slavin (1991) used Cooperative Learning techniques to the students
for more than four weeks and found that the students obtained better results when they
learned and did activities with a group.
Johnson et al. (1991) mentioned that the positive effect of Cooperative
Learning and achievement is personal development and social support. Wichadee
(2005) mentioned that the effects of Cooperative Learning helped low achievement
15
students improve their ability and their opinions towards classroom atmosphere were
positive.
However, even though Cooperative Learning is one of the effective
techniques used in language teaching, it was possible that it would not match with the
students who had feelings of fear from making mistakes, which educators refer it as
anxiety. Grandall (1999) pointed out that students wouldn’t deal with the situation
when the teachers ask difficult questions which only a few students have answers for.
He also argued that the solution to reduce anxiety is giving students time to think and
have opportunities to exchange their ideas each other in small groups until they
become acceptable in the classroom.
Moreover, there were some students who complain about having to
work in teams, especially if they can’t choose their own teammates. However,
students cannot change to the group they prefer. To make them to be as professional
as possible, Tuckman (1965) stated that many teams are having problems; it’s hard to
avoid storming of the well-known forming-storming-norming-performing team
development but most of them manage to work through the problems.
The above points explain about the effects of Cooperative Learning on
students. It has effects on students in positive ways and negative ways; it then
becomes necessary to examine its benefits and the limitations of Cooperative
Learning.
2.1.9 The Benefits and the Limitations of Cooperative Learning
To recognize the benefits which are gained by students from their
experience from studying using Cooperative Learning in a classroom, it is necessary
to understand how to gain them.
According to Stevens (2003), the benefits of Cooperative Learning
involved reading and writing English in secondary schools. Jenkins, et al (2003)
mentioned that the benefit of Cooperative Learning was the promotion of self-esteem
and confidence building and the development of a safe learning environment and
better performance in classrooms.
Slavin (1996) described Cooperative Learning as a teaching method in
which students work together in small groups; it benefits one another and they can
help each other. Rushalz (1992) suggested that Cooperative Learning strategy builds
16
group situations that will be able to receive support and feedback, develop decision
making, problem solving and interactive skills. Webb (1985) stated that students get
greater understanding when their classmates make a presentation and it is easy to get
concepts from them. Gokhale (1995) stated that team-based learning provides
opportunities for discussion and clarification of ideas.
Saban (2000) mentioned that a Cooperative Learning environment is
where group members share ideas and knowledge with each other; they see the weak
points in each other’s reasoning, they correct each other and they accept their
perceptions based on their views.
The limitations in Cooperative Learning are, as Sharan (2010)
describes, that because Cooperative Learning is constantly changing, there is a
possibility that teachers may confused and lack of the understanding of competition
method. The Cooperative Learning cannot be used effectively in many situations.
Also teachers can get into the habit of relying on Cooperative Learning as a way to
keep students busy. Teachers believe that Cooperative Learning could be challenged
from students who believe that they are being held back by their slower teammates or
by students who are less confident and feel that they are being ignored by their team.
Students often provide feedback in the form of evaluations or reviews
on success of the teamwork experienced during cooperative learning experiences.
Peer review and evaluations may not reflect true experiences due to perceived
competition among peers. Students might feel pressured into submitting inaccurate
evaluations. To eliminate the concerns, the confidential evaluation processes may help
to increase evaluation strength.
After exploring various benefits and negatives of Cooperative
Learning, it is now necessary to examine the perception of students and teachers to
Cooperative Learning.
2.1.10 The Perception of Students and Teachers to Cooperative Learning
To recognize the attitude of students and teachers to cooperative
leaning, then it was necessary to fully understand the feelings of students and teachers
toward Cooperative Learning in the classroom, how useful is Cooperative Learning in
class activities, and how affective factors such as happiness and boredom are
influenced by Cooperative Learning.
17
Feichiner and Davis (1984) found that students were dissatisfied with
group work; students dislike a group activity in the classroom. McManus and
Gettinger (1996) added that students in their study reported that they were most
dissatisfied with the conflicts in the group when they work together. Phipps, Kask and
Higgins (2001) discovered that less than one-fifth of the students in their sample
perceived that group work positively impacted their learning.
However, Carlsmith and Cooper (2002), Meyers (1997); Pychgl,
Clarke and Abarbarel (1999); Thompson, Vermettoo and Wisniewski (2004) pointed
out that there is effectiveness in student participation and productivity. Johnson and
Smith (1998) agreed that achievement efforts and positive relationships between
students occur when teachers use Cooperative Learning. It is obvious that students did
not like to work in groups but they will see the effectiveness of studying in the
classroom when they help each other to solve problems, somehow, if students do not
have confidence to ask teachers by themselves, they can ask peers instead.
Other studies in Cooperative Learning related to teachers’ perceptions.
Kutnick et al. (2005) explained that teachers believed in the benefits of teamwork but
teachers’ control can be lost. However, Ares et al. (1992) stated that this kind of
strategy can be challenging because it shares responsibilities and communicating with
each other, one teacher said that the planning of a Cooperative Learning lesson was
stimulating and created strategy. Another teacher supported that it is fun and students
get to know each other’s abilities and they get excited about each other. Johnson and
R. Johnson (1989), Johnson et al, (1983) added that the perception of students to one
another is in a positive way, they care for each other. They also like teachers because
teachers accept them and support them.
It could be ascertained that students and teachers have positive
perceptions about Cooperative Learning. In addition, the teachers think Cooperative
Learning is a strategy that has benefit to students. It could be the good strategy for
both students and teachers using it.
Once the perception of students and teachers to Cooperative Learning
is fully understood, then it is necessary to examine the history and the background of
the school in this study.
18
2.2 RELEVANT PREVIOUS STUDIES
In this section, some previous studies and their findings concerning the
effectiveness and perception of students and teachers to Cooperative Learning in
English course are reviewed to identify suitable research methodology and
instruments as well as possible sources regarding English courses within this study.
There are many researchers have conducted studies to find out how to use
Cooperative Learning in developing an English courses of students.
Pattanpichet (2011) conducted an experimental study to investigate the effects
of using Cooperative Learning in promoting students’ speaking achievement.The
participants are 35 undergraduate students. The purpose of this study is to explore the
students’ views for the use of Cooperative Learning; they were asked to complete a
student diary after finishing each task. The result was analyzed by examining
frequency, mean, standard deviation, t-test, effect size and content analysis. The
finding of this study is revealed an improvement of students’ speaking performance,
positive feedback from students for using collaborative learning activities. This study
provides the suggestions and the recommendation for further investigations.
Talebi and Sobhani (2012) conducted a study on the impact of Cooperative
Learning on English language learners' speaking proficiency. The participants are 40
students (male and female) enrolled in a speaking course at an IELTS Center in
Mashhad, Iran.The results of this study showed the performance of experimental
group in the oral interviews was the same at the end of the course for the control
group. The mean score of the experimental group was higher than the control group
which mean it is significantly.
Ning (2011) conducted an experimental study to find out the effect of
Cooperative Learning in enhancing tertiary students’ fluency and communication. The
purpose of this study is to offer the students more chance for the language production,
enhancing their fluency and the effectiveness in the communication. The test result of
this study showed that the students’ English competence in skills and vocabulary in
19
Cooperative Learning classes was superior to the whole-class instruction, particularly
in speaking, listening, and reading.
Ning and Hornby (2010) conducted a study to investigate the effects of
Cooperative Learning on Chinese EFL learners' competencies in listening, speaking,
reading, writing and vocabulary.One hundred participants of the first-year college
English learners from China in the North of China.The findings revealed that the
Cooperative Learning approach in the teaching of listening, speaking and reading but
no did not find the differences between the two approaches in the areas of writing and
vocabulary.
Sühendan and Bengü (2014) investigated ELT students’ attitudes towards
Cooperative Learning. The participants are 166 female and male students whose ages
were between 18-20 year old and who were studying at preparatory school from the
different faculties. The finding reported the focus group was organized. the students
mentioned about both negative and positive sides of cooperative work. Furthermore,
the findings reported that the gender and attitudes were differences towards
Cooperative Learning for the good of females.
Yang (2005) conduct the comparison of the effectiveness of Cooperative
Learning and traditional teaching methods with Taiwanese college students’ English
oral performance and motivation towards learning. The participants are 60 Taiwanese
college students. The One-way ANOVA was used to analyze the speaking component
(intermediate level) of the GEPT scores and MIQ results.
Triwattananthongchai (2000) conducted a comparison of Mathayomsuksa
students’ reading comprehension and responsibility in Thai through the instructional
method based on the Cooperative Learning technique ‘STAD’ and the teacher’s
manual. Participants were 72 MathayomSuksa II students at Pathumthanee
“Nunthamuneebumrung” school, AmphoeMauang, Pathumthanee Province in the first
semester of the 1990 academic year. They were randomly assigned into an
experimental group and a control group with 36 students in each. The same content
20
was taught for both groups within sixteen weeks at 50 minutes per period. The
control group was taught by Cooperative Learning technique ‘STAD’, while the
control group was taught by the teacher’s manual. The research design was
randomized control group; pretest posttest design. The instrument used in this study
was a reading comprehension test and the questionnaire of responsibility. Statistical
techniques used in this study were t-test independent between groups and t-test
dependent for each group. The result of the study indicated that: 1) The reading
comprehension between the experimental group and the control group was
significantly different at the 0.01 level. 2) The responsibility of the students between
the experimental group and the control group was significantly different at the 0.01
level. 3) The reading comprehension of the experimental group before and after the
experiment was significantly different at the 0.01 level. 4) The responsibility of the
students in the experimental group before and after the experiment was significantly
different at the 0.01 level. 5) The reading comprehension of the control group before
and after the experiment was significantly different at the 0.01 level. 6) The
responsibility of the students in the control group before and after the experiment was
significantly different at the 0.01 level.
Chomsiri (2009) conducted research on the effects of Cooperative Learning
Technique: Student Team Assisted Individualization (TAI) on Primary 4 Students’
Reading Comprehension at Anubanrayoung School. The purpose of this study was to
compare the abilities in English reading comprehension of students at primary school
level 4 using Cooperative Learning Technique: Student Team Assisted
Individualization (TAI). The sample consisted of 45 primary 4 students studying in
the second semester of the academic year 2008 at Anubanrayong School. They were
selected by simple random sampling. The study was carried out for sixteen periods.
The experimental design was one group pre-test and post-test. The instruments were
the sixteen lesson plans, the English reading comprehension test, the Cooperative
Learning Behavioral Observation Tool, and the questionnaire that surveyed the
students’ opinions of Student Team Assisted Individualization (TAI). The mean score,
the percentage and the t-test for dependent sample were used to analyze the data. The
study showed the following results: 1. The ability in English reading comprehension
21
of primary 4 students significantly increased at the .01 level after using Cooperative
Learning Technique: Student Team Assisted Individualization (TAI). 2. The students’
Cooperative Learning Behaviors were gradually developed. At the initial stage, their
Cooperative Behaviors were unsatisfactory. However, there was an increase to a
higher level of satisfaction as the implementation progressed. 3. Opinions of the
students on Student Cooperative Learning Technique: Student Team Assisted
Individualization (TAI) in English were positive.
Pinkeaw (1993) conduct the investigated students’ views on interaction and
learning achievement through Cooperative Learning method in upper–secondary
English classes. The participants were eighty twoMathayomsuksa 4 students. The
finding indicated that all students’ achievements of listening and speaking were
satisfactory, the moderate achievers’ views decreased significantly after teaching.
Sittilert (1994) examined the effects of Cooperative Integrated Reading and
Composition (CIRC) on English reading comprehension and the opinions towards
classroom atmosphere of Mathayomsuksa 5 students. The participants were 106
Mathayomsuksa 5 students who taking English Reading 3 (English 033) at
YuparajWittayalai school, Chiangmai, the academic year of 1994. a reading
achievement test were used, a questionnaire asking students’ opinion towards
classroom atmosphere. The results showed that the Cooperative Integrated Reading
and Composition (CIRC) helped low achievement students improve their ability. The
opinions towards classroom atmosphere were positive the English reading
comprehension achievement of the experimental group was higher than the control
group..
Hampton &Grundnitski (1996) conduct the comparison for the progress of
college business students of different achievement levels after they had engaged in
Cooperative Learning. The data indicated that 215 achievement– diverse participants
in Cooperative Learning did not benefit equally. And also, the low achieving students
get the benefit from the Cooperative Learning. This result suggests that Cooperative
Learning may be particularly valuable in helping low achievers.
22
Thupapong (1996) conducted the effects of Students Teams–Achievement
Division (STAD) on English reading achievement and cooperation. The participants
were seventy eightMathayomsuksaIV students. The instruments were reading
achievement tests and cooperation tests. The results in this study revealed that the
gained scores of the high, medium, and low achievers who were taught by the STAD
teaching approach were not significantly. The last finding was that the high, medium,
and low achievers who were taught by the STAD teaching were not significantly
different in their cooperation at the level of .05.
Siriratana (1999) compared English reading comprehension, writing ability,
Cooperative Learning activities through instruction using Top-Level Structure (TLS)
with CIRC and the teacher’s manual. The participants were 80 Mathayomsuksa 5
students in the first semester of the 1999 academic year of Debsirin School, Bangkok.
The instruments which were used in this study were an English reading
comprehension test, a writing ability test and a cooperative test. The results of this
study revealed that the English reading comprehension, between the experimental and
control groups, was significantly different at the .01 level. The finding is the English
reading comprehension, the English writing ability and the Cooperative Learning
ability of the control group, between the pretest and posttest, was significantly
different at the .01 level.
Tang (2000) did a research on 12 ESL students from India, South Korea, Hong
Kong, Croatia and Taiwan at a secondary school in Canada which used the concept
mapping skill to teach ESL reading in the classroom. The observation of ESL
students’ activities in Cooperative Learning by using the concept–mapping strategy.It
could improve the reading comprehension and the communication skills.
Meteetum (2001) conducted a case study research on Cooperative Learning
by using the technique of jigsaw with nine second-year English major students at
Naresuan University. The purpose are 1) to investigate the students’ use of linguistic
in their discourse involved in cooperative structures, to examine the improvement in
students’ grammar and competence, 2) investigate the input, output, and context
23
quality of language in Cooperative Learning, and 3)to study the attitudes of students
towards the Cooperative Learning method. The research design of was a qualitative
approach. The results showed that there were 39 language functions and 3 social
language functions used in learning sessions. The finding revealed that students had
positive for almost all subjects towards Cooperative Learning in terms of oral
competence, academic achievement, social skills, personal development, collaborative
skills, thinking skills, and learning atmosphere.
Moryadee (2001) conducted the effects of Cooperative Learning using Student
Team-Achievement Divisions (STAD) technique on self-efficacy and English
learning achievement of Prathomsuksa 5 students. The participants were 78
prathomsuksa 5 students of Samsen Kindergarten School. The results indicated that
the students who studied through STAD have a higher self-efficacy after the treatment
than before the treatment at the .01 level of significance. The finding is the students
who studied through STAD have a higher English learning achievement after the
treatment than before the treatment at the .01 level of significance.
Somapee (2002) compared critical thinking skills of students who studied
Business English I at Chiangrai Commercial School using the Cooperative Learning
method with those of students using the traditional group work method and surveyed
the opinions of students toward the Cooperative Learning method. The questionnaire
was used in this study to assess their opinion about Cooperative Learning. The results
of the test revealed that critical thinking skills of students in the experimental group
were higher than those in the control group. The results of the questionnaire showed
that students’ opinions were moderately positive towards the Cooperative Learning.
Seetape (2003) conducted the effects of Cooperative Learning on English
reading achievement and the students’ behavior towards this learning method used in
the English classroom. The participants were 29 Mathayomsuksa 3 students in
KanchanaphisekwittayalaiUthaithani School selected by means of purposive
sampling. The instruments were observation sheet in an English reading achievement
test, a Cooperative Learning behavioral, and lesson plans using Cooperative Learning
24
technique. The results showed that the post-test scores were higher than the pre-test
scores at the .05 after learning English reading by using Cooperative Learning level of
significance. The finding was most of the samples displayed very good behavior in
cooperating in their tasks. Their cooperative behavior had increasingly developed.
Daenraj (1999) studied “The Comparison of MathayomSuksa III Students’
Reading Comprehension and Interest in English Learning through Cooperative Story
Mapping and the Teacher’s Manual”. The purpose of this study was to compare
MathayomSuksa III students’ reading comprehension and interest in English learning
through cooperative story mapping and the teacher’s manual. The samples of this
study were 2 classrooms of MathayomSuksa III students in the first semester of the
1998 academic year of Chan Hun Bampen School, HuayKhwang, Bangkok. They
were selected by using simple random sampling and divided into the experimental and
control groups, with 36 students each. The experimental group was taught by
cooperative story mapping and the control group was taught by the teacher’s manual.
The instruments used in this study were English Comprehension Test and
Questionnaires on Interest in English Learning. The data were statistically analyzed
by t-test for independent samples and t-test for dependent samples.
Huttapanom (2002) studied “The Development of Instructional Activities for
Teaching PrathomSuksa I Addition and Subtraction with Emphasis on Thematic
Approach and Cooperative Learning”. The purposes of the research were 1) to
develop instructional activities for teaching mathematics, 2) to develop learning
achievement in mathematics, and 3) to construct an instructional model for teaching
PrathomSuksa I mathematical topics of addition and subtraction with the augend and
sum not exceeding 100. The target group was comprised of 25 grade 1 students in the
Demonstration School of the Faculty of Education, KhonKaen University, during the
second semester of the 2001 academic year. The tools used in the study include 15
lesson plans which emphasize thematic approach and Cooperative Learning and a
learning achievement test on addition and subtraction with the augend and sum not
exceeding 100. The study employed an action research procedure consisting of 4
action spirals. The data were collected from observation, field notes, student
25
interviews, exercises and a test. The data was analyzed by means of text analysis for
mean, frequency, standard deviation and percentage. The findings: 1. The
instructional model based on thematic approach and Cooperative Learning had an aim
to enable the students to learn and comprehend concepts, symbols, and methods for
solving any mathematical problems. From the activities the students had learned
various ways of solving problems by themselves from concrete, semi-concrete and
symbolic media. They had an opportunity to explain their reasons for solving
problems. Group members worked together cooperatively and learned from each
other. The model had created an atmosphere of learning which helps develop in
learner’s the ability to solve mathematical problems. The model, emphasizing
thematic approach and Cooperative Learning, is comprised of 3 steps, i.e. 1) the
introduction, which was essentially a concept development step where the students are
required to face situational problems relating to theme, to understand the problems
and apply various methods for solving them, to select the suitable methods and start
the action, and to summarize a concept, 2) the small-group study which is essentially
a skill development step where the students join a small group to do activities as
prescribed on the content and activity cards and find answers on the back of the cards,
and 3) the skill practice step in which the students practice how to solve problems in
various situational by themselves. 2. 71.25% of the students made a higher learning
achievement in addition and subtraction of the augend and sum not exceeding 100
than the prescribed criterion, and 80.21% of the students passed the prescribed
criterion.
Rossoongnoen (2005) conducted a study on “The effect of Student Teams-
Achievement Divisions (STAD) Cooperative Learning Technique on
MatthayomSuksa 2 Students’ Reading Comprehension” at BuddhajakWittaya School.
The purpose of this study was to compare MatthayomSuksa 2 students’ abilities in
English reading comprehension before and after using Student Teams-Achievement
Divisions (STAD) Cooperative Learning Technique. The sample consisted of 40
MatthayomSuksa 2 students studying in the first semester of the 2004 academic year
at BuddhajakWittaya School. They were selected by sample random sampling. The
study was carried out for eighteen fifty-minute periods. The experimental design was
26
one group pretest and posttest. The instruments were the seven lesson plans based on
Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD), the English reading comprehension
test, the Cooperative Learning behavioral observation tool, and the questionnaire
which surveyed the students’ opinions of Student Teams-Achievement Divisions
(STAD). The mean score, the percentage and the t-test for dependent sample were
used to analyze the data. The results of the study showed that 1) After using Student
Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD) Cooperative Learning Technique, the ability
in English reading comprehension of MatthayomSuksa 2 students significantly
increased at the .01 level. 2) The students’ Cooperative Learning behaviors were
gradually developed; at the initial stage their cooperative behaviors were
unsatisfactory, after the implementation, there was an increase to high level of
satisfaction. 3) The students’ opinions on Student Teams-Achievement Divisions
(STAD) Cooperative Learning technique in English were positive.
Thipkeg (2004) conducted research on “Cooperative Learning Effects on
Students Achievement and Group Behavior”. The purposes of this research were to
study and compare students’ achievement and group behavior and study student
opinions on a vocational level electric power program for first year students. The
samples of the study were Technology Bangkapi students in the vocational level
electric power program. Two comparable classes were selected as samples of the
study by means of comparing the achievement in structure setting in the first
semester. The two classes were assigned into an experimental group and a control
group. The research instruments used were lesson plans and achievement tests which
supplied a reliability of .77, a group work behavior test with the reliability of .87, and
the opinion questionnaire with a reliability of .72. The research design and the data
was an analysis of covariance. The results of this research were as follows: 1) The
experimental group, who studied by applying Cooperative Learning approach was at
moderate level and the experimental group, who studied by applied method, was at
lowest level. The experimental group, who studied by applying Cooperative Learning
approach had a statistically significant difference and was higher than the control
group, who applied the conventional method. 2) The group behavior of the
experimental group was at a higher level and the group behavior of the experimental
27
group was also statistically significant, had a difference and was higher than the
control group, and the group behavior of the experimental group, who studied by
applying Cooperative Learning approach was statistically significant and had a
difference and was higher than the control group, who applied the conventional
method. 3) Students’ opinions on the vocational level electric power program, by first
year students, who studied by applying Cooperative Learning approach, was higher
assent intermediate strata.
28
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter describes: 1) Participants, 2) Materials, 3) Data Analysis.
3.1 PARTICIPANTS
The participants in this study are 54 students from a private school Thailand in
academic years 2014-15 studying English. They are from two classrooms that use and
do not use Cooperative Learning (STAD) in the English course. They are in
Mathayom 4 in high school at a private school in Loei province, Thailand.
3.2 MATERIALS
The instruments used in this study were a questionnaire in English language
and Thai language for groups which were using Cooperative Learning (STAD) and
interviews of 2 teachers who teach these groups in order to perceive students’ and
teachers’ perception about Cooperative Learning (STAD). It is divided into three
main parts.
3.2.1 Questionnaire
There are three parts in the questionnaire as follows:
Part I: General background of the respondents
In this part, the respondents have been asked about their gender
and English scores.
Part II: Cooperative Learning experience
This part of the questionnaire has been designed about the
experience that students face with Cooperative Learning (STAD)
Part III: Perception of students towards Cooperative
Learning
This part of the questionnaire has been designed in the form of
a Likert Scale; the respondents were asked to tick (/) the number that was the most
suitable to them.
SD = Strongly disagree (1)
D = Disagree (2)
N - Neutral (3)
A - Agree (4)
SA - Strongly agree (5)
29
54 questionnaires were sent out to the students who were taught by
using Cooperative Learning (STAD). All 54 questionnaires were returned. To
determine whether the test was significant, the researcher used the SPSS in this step.
3.2.2 Teachers’ Interviews
There are three questions asking teachers about their attitude
about using Cooperative Learning for teaching students. The researcher had a
recording machine to record the conversation between the researcher and the
interviewees. The researcher also took note of the interviewees’ behaviors during the
conversations.
3.2.3 The Midterm scores
The researcher compared the midterm scores for the group
which used Cooperative Learning (STAD) and the control group not using
Cooperative Learning (STAD). In this step the researcher used one paired t-test
sample analysis.
3.3 PROCEDURES
3.3.1 Research Design
This study combined both quantitative (questionnaire) and
qualitative (interview) research approaches in order to gain reliable and valid results
and sufficient data from the respondents.
3.3.2 Data Collection
Before sending the questionnaires to the participants, the
researcher found the IOC (Index of Item-Objective Congruence) by asking 3
experts to check the questionnaire. Then a pilot study was conducted by using the
revised questionnaires for 6 students. A pilot study has a lot of advantages; it
provides the researcher with the information regarding if the words used in the
questionnaire are clear enough for the participants or not.
The questionnaire was designed in English and distributed to a
group of students as a pilot study in order to ensure that the respondents would
understand the items in the questionnaire. The researcher provided the questionnaire
and interview questions to the expert to check them first. Then the researcher gave 6
students the questionnaire and interviewed 2 teachers.
30
After the questionnaires were adjusted following the feedback
from the pilot study, 54 questionnaires were distributed to students in the group that
used Cooperative Learning (STAD) in the English course. Also, the researcher
interviewed two teachers who used Cooperative Learning (STAD) that taught these
54 students.
3.4 DATA ANALYSIS
The researcher created a Students’ Questionnaire both in English and in Thai
language. The researcher administered the questionnaires in Thai because students in
year 11 may not understand English well and the English answer would be unreliable.
After the respondents responded to the questionnaire, the researcher narrowed it to
analyze what percentage of students selected strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree,
and strongly disagree. The results of the analysis have been reported in the research
paper in the appendix. In the interview section, the researcher interviewed the teachers
who teach the 54 students by using Cooperative Learning (STAD). The researcher
used recording software on a tablet during the interview for data management.
31
CHAPTER4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
This chapter examines the findings of the research on the perception of
teachers and students toward Cooperative Learning in an English course at a private
school with regard to: (1) The perception of students about Cooperative Learning for
studying an English course. (2) The perception of teachers about Cooperative
Learning for teaching an English course. (3) The difference between the test results of
the students in the class that used Cooperative Learning (STAD) and those that did
not use Cooperative Learning (STAD)?
This study is limited to only students and teachers in two classes of students in
year 11 in the academic year 2014-2015 at a private school. The sample is composed
of 54 students and this study received 54 the questionnaires back and computation is
100 %. The researcher used SPSS program for the statistics.
Due to the abundant results yielded in this study, the findings were presented
according to the sequence of the research questions stated above.
Part 1 General Background
Part 2 Cooperative Learning Experience
Part 3 RQ1: Perception of Students toward Cooperative Learning
Part 4 Open Ended Questions: Advantages and disadvantages of Cooperative
Learning, the reasons that make students feel uncomfortable when using Cooperative
Learning, the barriers of Cooperative Learning in the class.
Part 5 RQ2: Perception of Teachers toward Cooperative Learning
Part 6 RQ3: Thedifference between the midterm results in the English course
between students in the class that used Cooperative Learning (STAD) and the class
that did not use Cooperative Learning (STAD).
Part 1 General Background
This section details the general background of students in the group that used
Cooperative Learning in the English course.
32
Table 4.1Gender
Gender Frequency Percentage (%)
Male 26 46.70
Female 28 53.30
Total 54 100.00
Table 4.1 shows the information about the gender of respondents. The
majority of the respondents was female (53.30%) and the minority of the respondents
were male (46.70%).
Part 2 Cooperative Learning Experience
Table 4.2 English Score (N=54)
English Scores Frequency Percentage (%)
21-30 24 43.30
31-40 30 56.70
Total 54 100.00
As shown in Table 4.2, 43.30% of the students earned English scores in the
range of 21-30 and 56.70% of the students earned English scores in the range of 31-
40. It shows that the majority of respondents (56.70%) got high scores in the English
course.
Table 4.3 Cooperative Learning Experience
Items Frequency Percentage (%)
Ever participated activity 54 100.00
Never participated activity 00 0.00
Total 54 100.00
33
According to Table 4.3, all of the students (100%) have participated in a group
activity/assignment within the English class.
Table 4.4 Cooperative Learning experience
Items Frequency (person) Percentage (%)
Every day in activity group 38 68.30
Two-three times a week in activity group
16 31.70
Total 54 100.00
There is 68.30% of students who have been in group activity in English class
every day, and 31.70% students who have been in the group activity in an English
class two-three times a week.
This section explains the analyses of the data to answer the three research
questions. The results of the research were reported accordingly.
Part 3 Perception of students toward Cooperative Learning
4.1.1 RQ1: The perception of students toward Cooperative Learning
for studying an English course.
Table 4.5 How do students perceive Cooperative Learning
Perception of Students
N = 54
PPerception
Level Stro
ngly
A
gree
Agr
ee
Unc
erta
in
Dis
agre
e
Stro
ngly
D
isag
ree M
X
S
SD
When I work together I achieve more than when I work alone. 92.6% 7.4% - - - 4.93 .252 High
Group activities make the learning experience easier. 73.2% 26.8% - - - 4.60 .494 Low
Cooperative Learning improves students’ knowledge, self- confidence and communication
23.2% 76.8% - - - 4.77 .427 Moderate
Total 4
4.76
According to the table above, when students work together, most of them
strongly agree (92.6%) that they achieve more than when they work alone. Most of
them (73.2%), also strongly agreed that the group activities make them learn easier.
34
Most of them (76.8%), strongly agreed that Cooperative Learning improves their
knowledge, self-confidence and their communication skill.
Table 4.6 What is the attitude of students about Cooperative Learning
Perception of students
N = 54
PPerception
Level Stro
ngly
A
gree
Agr
ee
Unc
erta
in
Dis
agre
e
Stro
ngly
D
isag
ree M
X
S
SD
I willingly participate in Cooperative Learning activities. 35.7% 64.3%
- - - 4.78 .417 Moderate
I am satisfied that my teachers apply Cooperative Learning in the English course.
37.5% 62.5% - - -
4.87 .343 High
Cooperative Learning can improve my attitude towards work.
35.7% 64.3% - - - 4.82 .390 High
Total
44.82
According to the table 4.6, students would like to participate in Cooperative
Learning activities, the mean is 4.78. Students are satisfied when their teachers apply
Cooperative Learning in the English course, the mean is 4.87. Cooperative Learning
is perceived as able to improve students’ attitude towards work, the mean is 4.82.
Table 4.7 How does the Cooperative Learning enhances student work
Perception of students
N = 54
PPerception
Level
Stro
ngly
A
gree
Agr
ee
Unc
erta
in
Dis
agre
e
Stro
ngly
D
isag
ree M
X
S
SD
Cooperative Learning enhances good working relationships among students.
42.9% 57.1% - - -
4.62 .490 Low
Cooperative Learning enhances class participation. 19.6% 80.4% - - - 4.70 .462 Low
Total 4
4.66
35
According to table 4.7, Cooperative Learning improves the relationship among
students, the mean is 4.62, and for improving their class participation, the mean is
4.70.
Part 4 Open – Ended questions
1. The advantages of Cooperative Learning
Students help one another when they work together. They learn how to be the
leader when they work in groups. They learn how to solve the problems together.
They learn how to teach one another and explain material in their own words. It is
good because it will help students know how to use the material. They are more
willing to answer question in a group setting. The interpersonal skills can be learned
in a Cooperative Learning activity. Cooperative Learning has the potential to satisfy
more learning styles than individual styles. The lower ability students receive the
benefits of the high ability students in their group. They learn how to work together.
2. The disadvantages of Cooperative Learning
However, there are negative effects, as follows, on student learning when
compared to individual or competitive conditions. It is a burden for some students to
be responsible for other’s learning. The mixed ability, low-achieving students can
become passive and do not focus on the task An individual’s motivation and interest
in a particular subject will determine how well they will learn. The students think by
themselves, without the help from others. The conflict occurs when working in a
group. It is difficult for the teachers to be sure that the groups are discussing the
academic content rather than something else. The high ability students may not feel it
is a challenge. The lower ability students may need more help compared to higher
achieve excellent students. There were some students who complained about having
to work in teams, especially if they can’t choose their own teammates as students
cannot change to the group they prefer.
The explanation as above talks about the perception of students about the good
and bad aspects of Cooperative Learning. Next, are the factors that make students feel
uncomfortable to learn using Cooperative Learning.
36
3. The factors that make students feel uncomfortable to learn using
Cooperative Learning
Some students like to talk to each other more than pay attention to the group
work. Some students feel unhappy if the members in the group that the teacher
assigns are not good. Some students feel stress because they are worried that they
will be the weak point of the group, they will pull the group down due to their
weakness. Some poor level students feel that excellent students explain to them very
fast, they feel that they are too slow for the group and the excellent students
understand too quickly and they don’t dare to ask for them to explain again. Some
poor level students lack confidence to join the group activities and lack confidence to
answer the questions. Some poor level students don’t dare to express their opinion.
Some low level students feel fear when working in groups.
The explanation above talks about the perceptions of students and about the
reasons that students feel uncomfortable to learn using Cooperative Learning. Next,
the research will talk about the barriers of Cooperative Learning in the class.
4. The barriers of Cooperative Learning in the class
Some low achieving students did not participate and some high level students
would take over the group. The burden is making the students responsible for each
other’s learning. Somestudent showed that in groups of mixed ability, low-achieving,
students do not pay attention on the task. It is to make students become independent
and able to think by themselves without any help of others. There is a chance for
students toget the conflict to each other. So, there is necessary to get the conflict
resolution skills. The teachers are not sure that the groups are discussing about the
academic content rather than something else. The higher ability students may think
that they would not get along with other higher ability students.
Part 5 Perception of teachers toward Cooperative Learning
4.1.2 RQ 2: What is the Perception of Teachers toward
Cooperative Learning in an English Course?
This part answers research question number 2 ‘What is the
37
Perception of Teachers toward Cooperative Learning in an English Course? The
researcher interviewed two teachers who taught students in two classrooms by using
Cooperative Learning (STAD).
1. How Cooperative Learning helps the students
The use of small-group learning activities appears to benefit students in
different ways. These activities make students learn more quickly than other students
who do not use Cooperative Learning. Students who teach other students find that
teaching someone else improved their understanding of the lesson. For peer teaching,
students teaching each other is a very effective way to increase student learning.
Students working together in a group activity makes students get a higher level of
learning and achievement than individually. Working together with peers encourages
students to develop problem solving strategies. This allows students to learn first-hand
that there is not just one correct way to solve most problems. Small group activities
also provide students with opportunities to express their understanding of what they
have learned. They have opportunities to practice communicating with peers when
they explain something to group members. Small-group discussions also allow
students to ask and answer more questions than they would be able to so in large-
group discussions.
2. The barriers that the teachers have to cope with when they apply
Cooperative Learning
Some studentsdid not work cooperative very well; especially some
students did their individual work, made the class noisy and the classroom
management was not easy to deal with. It is difficult to control students if there are
many students in the classroom. It is not easy to train the students to adapt the
Cooperative Learning to the situations that they face. It is not easy to encourage them
to take part in their group activities. It is difficult to have effective methods to
measure students’ performances. Some students were absent which may affecte the
group discussions, cooperative atmosphere and group performances. Teachers feel
uncomfortable in their role of performing in front of students. For groups, the
teacher's role have to step back and just observe, listen, and assist students only as
38
needed. Instead of giving or teaching students, teachers will have to step back and
watch them.
3. Application of Cooperative Learning more often in the future.
It is important that group activities can help students learn to work in
groups and to help one another. They can practice also how to work with others. Also,
students' achievement motivation is often higher in small-group activities because
students feel more positive about being able to complete a task with others than by
working individually. This increases motivation and improves student attitudes
towards the subject and the course.
Part 6 The difference of test scores
4.1.3 RQ3: Thedifference between the midterm results in the English
course between students in the class that used Cooperative Learning (STAD) and the
class that did not use Cooperative Learning (STAD).
Table 4.8 Mean Comparison of midterm test scores
Paired Samples Statistics
Items Mean N Std. Deviation Std. Error Mean
Pair 1 Group 1 32.35 54 1.695 .231
Group 2 37.13 54 2.442 .332
Table 4.9 Paired Samples t-test
Paired Samples Test
Items Mean Std Deviation
t Sig (2-tailed)
Pair 1 Group 1-Group 2 4.778 2.455 14.303 .000
39
In order to find the answer to this research question, the researcher chose
paired sample t-test to analyze the means of the two groups. This is to compare the
difference of the learning and teaching efficiency of them both. The mean of students
who study using Cooperative Learning (STAD) is higher than the mean of students
who do not study using Cooperative Learning (STAD). The paired sample t-test
indicates the total midterm scores of group 1 and group 2 were significantly different.
The result indicated that the significance is .01. The significance shows the
difference between the mean score of the group using Cooperative Learning (STAD)
and the group not using Cooperative Learning (STAD). The performance of the group
using Cooperative Learning (STAD) is better than the Group not using Cooperative
Learning (STAD). This indicates that Cooperative Learning (STAD) is more effective
than the regular class in term of improving in English.
40
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter is organized into the following section: (1) a summary of the
study, (2) a summary of the findings, (3) the discussion, (4) conclusions, and (5)
recommendations for further research.
5.1 SUMMARY OF THE STUDY
This section summarizes the objectives, materials, procedures and describes the
participants. Details are as follows:
5.1.1 Objectives of the study
1. To examine the perception of students toward Cooperative Learning for
studying in an English course.
2. To examine the perception of teachers toward Cooperative Learning for
teaching an English course.
3. To compare the difference between the test results of the students in the
class that used Cooperative Learning (STAD) and those that did not use Cooperative
Learning (STAD)?
5.1.2 Participants, Materials, and Procedures
5.1.2.1 Participants
The participants of this study were 54 year 11 students at a private school
in Loei province in Thailand. This school use Cooperative Learning (STAD) in an
English course, which is why they were selected for this study.
5.1.2.2 Materials
The research instrument used in this study was a questionnaire for students
who used Cooperative Learning, interviews with teachers who used Cooperative
Learning and a comparison of the test results between the group using Cooperative
Learning and the group which did not use Cooperative Learning. The questionnaire
was divided into four parts. The first part is the background information of the
participants: gender and scores in English. The second part required participants to
provide their experience about Cooperative Learning. This consisted of topics such as
41
if they ever participated in a group activity/assignment in the English classroom and
how often they have to be in the group activity in their classroom. The third part
examined the students’ perception toward Cooperative Learning in an English course.
The last part also examined the perception of students such as the advantages,
disadvantages, barriers and comfort for students when they were taught by
Cooperative Learning.
The interview was for two teachers who teach English using Cooperative
Learning (STAD). There are three questions. The first question is how Cooperative
Learning helps students. The second question is the barriers that teachers cope with
when they apply Cooperative Learning. The last question is how teachers want to
apply Cooperative Learning.
The researcher compared the difference of learning efficiency from the test
results of English subject between students in the class that used Cooperative
Learning (STAD) and those that did not use Cooperative Learning (STAD).
5.1.2.3 Procedures
The questionnaires were pre-tested in a pilot study by 6 students who have the
same ability as the participants. The finalized questionnaire was distributed to be
completed by 54 year 11 students. All 54 questionnaires were returned. After that
SPSS was used to analyze the data from the questionnaires to gain the percentages,
mean scores and standard deviations.
5.2 SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS
The results from this study can be summarized as follows:
5.2.1 Background information of the participants
The results showed that most of the participants were female, most of
the participants earned English scores in the range of 31-40 which shows that the
participants got high scores in the English subject, 100 % of participants participated
in a group activity/assignment within the English class.
5.2.2 Cooperative Learning experience
From the findings, all of the students have participated in a group
activity/assignment within the English class. Most of participants have had a group
activity in English class every day, and some students have been in a group activity in
42
an English class two-three times a week.
5.2.3 Perception of students toward Cooperative Learning
5.2.3.1 How do students perceive Cooperative Learning?
The results from this section showed that when the participants work
together, most of them strongly agree that they achieve more than when they work
alone. Most of them strongly agreed that the group activities make them learn easier,
and strongly agreed that Cooperative Learning improves their knowledge, self-
confidence and their communication skill.
5.2.3.2 What is the attitude of students about Cooperative Learning?
The participants would like to participate in Cooperative Learning
activities; they are satisfied when their teachers apply Cooperative Learning in the
English course. Cooperative Learning is perceived as being able to improve students’
attitude towards work.
5.2.3.3 How does Cooperative Learning enhance student work?
Cooperative Learning improves the relationship among students and
improves their class participation.
5.2.4 The perception of students about the advantages of Cooperative
Learning
Students help one another when they work together. They learn how to
be the leader when they work in group. They learn how to solve the problems
together. They learn how to teach one another and explain material in their own
words. It is good because it will help students know how to use. Students are more
willing to answer questions in a group setting. The individuals feel that they cannot
succeed unless everyone in their group succeeds. The interpersonal and collaboration
skills can be learned in a Cooperative Learning activity. Cooperative Learning has the
potential to satisfy more learning styles than individual learning. The lower ability
students get the benefits of having high ability students in their group. The students
learn how to work together.
5.2.5 The perception of students about the disadvantages of Cooperative
Learning
It is a burden to make some students responsible for other’s learning.
The mixed ability, low-achieving students can become passive and do not focus on
43
the task It depends on an individual’s motivation and interest in a particular subject to
determine how well they will learn. The students think by themselves, without help
from others. The conflict occurs when working in group. It is difficult for the teachers
to be sure that the groups are discussing the academic content rather than something
else. The high ability students may not feel it is a challenge. The lower ability
students may need more help compared to higher achieving excellent students.
5.2.6 The perception of students about the reasons that make students feel
uncomfortable to learn using Cooperative Learning
Some students like to talk to each other more than pay attention to the
group work. Some students feel unhappy if the members in the group that the teacher
assigns are not good. Some students feel stress because they are worried that they
will be the weak point of the group, they will pull the group down due to their
weakness. Some poor level students feel that excellent students explain to them very
fast, they feel that they are too slow for the group and the excellent students
understand too quickly and they don’t dare to ask for explanations again. Some poor
level students lack confidence to join the group activities and lack of confidence to
answer the questions. Some poor level students don’t dare to express their opinions.
5.2.7 The perception of students about the barriers of Cooperative
Learning in the class
Some low ability students may not participate and some high ability
students would take over the group. It is a burden to make the students responsible
for each other’s learning apart from them. One study showed that in groups of mixed
ability, low ability students become passive and do not focus on the task, and it
depends on an individual’s motivation and interest in a particular subject to determine
how well they will learn. The goal of scaffolding is for students to become
independent and able to think by themselves, without the help of others. High stakes
create increased chances for conflict and therefore a need for conflict resolution skills.
It is difficult for the teacher to be sure that the groups are discussing the academic
content rather than something else. The higher ability students may not experience the
stimulation or challenge that they would with other higher ability students, and the
lower ability students may feel perpetually in need of help rather than experiencing
the role of leader or expert relative to the others in their group.
44
5.2.8 Perception of teachers toward Cooperative Learning
5.2.8.1 How Cooperative Learning helps the students
The use of small-group learning activities appears to benefit
students in different ways. These activities make students learn more quickly than
other students who do not use Cooperative Learning. Students who teach other
students find that teaching someone else improved their understanding of the lesson.
For peer teaching, students teaching each other are a very effective way to increase
student learning. Students work together make themselves get problem solving
strategies. This allows students to learn first-hand that there is not just one correct
way to solve most problems. Small group activities also provide students with
opportunities to express their understanding of what they have learned. They have
opportunities to practice communicating with peers when they explain something to
group members. Small-group discussions also allow students to ask and answer more
questions than they would be able to be in large-group discussions.
5.2.8.2The barriers that the teachers have to cope with when they
apply Cooperative Learning
Some studentsdid not work cooperatively very well; especially,
some students did their individual work and made the class noisy, the classroom
management was sometimes not easy to deal with. It is difficult to control students if
there are many students in the classroom. It is not easy to train the students to adapt to
Cooperative Learning situation and to encourage them to take part in their group
activities. It is difficult to have effective methods to measure students’ performances.
Some students were absent, which affected the group discussions, cooperative
atmosphere and group performances. Teachers feel uncomfortable in their role
performing in front of students. For groups, the teacher's role will be to to step back
and just observe, listen, and assist students only as needed. Instead of giving or
teaching students, teachers will often step back and watch the students.
5.2.8.3 Application of Cooperative Learning in the future
It is important that group activities can help students learn to
work in groups and to help one another. They can practice also how to work with
others. Students' achievement motivation is often higher in small-group activities
because students feel more positive about being able to complete a task with others
45
than by working individually. This increased motivation improves student attitudes
towards the subject and the course.
5.3 DISCUSSION
5.3.1The Perception of Students about Cooperative Learning for
Learning in an English Course
In discussing, the findings relating to the first research question, this
study found that the majority of the respondents believe that when they work together
they achieve more than when they work alone. This finding supports the definition of
Jacobs &McCafferty (2006) who stated that Cooperative Learning has been proven to
be an effective teaching strategy for both teachers and students. It encourages them to
communicate to one another. The respondents agree that it makes them learn easier.
The Cooperative Learning improves students’ knowledge, self-confidence and
communication; it supports Johnson, et al. (1990) also agreed that Cooperative
Learning is an effective instruction showing that Cooperative Learning can be used
when we want students to learn more and develop more social skills. The majority of
the respondents believe that they are willing to participate in Cooperative Learning
activities. The majority of the respondents believe that they like their teachers to apply
Cooperative Learning and use it in English courses. The learners agree that
Cooperative Learning can improve their attitude towards work and this may result in
mostly positive outcomes. This finding supports Web (2002) who explained that the
students do real work together, sharing resources, helping, supporting, encouraging,
and praising each other’s efforts to learn. Cooperative Learning makes most of the
learners do class participation.
There are reasons some students feel uncomfortable to learn using
Cooperative Learning. Some students like to talk to each other more than pay
attention to the group work. Some students feel unhappy if the members in the group
the teacher assigned are not good. Some students feel stress because they are worried
that they will be the weak point of the group, they will pull the group down due to
their weakness. Some poor level students feel that excellent students explain to them
very fast, they feel that they are too slow for the group and the excellent students
understand too quickly, and they don’t dare to ask for explanations again. Some poor
46
level students lack confidence to join the group activities and lack confidence to
answer the questions. Some poor level students don’t dare to express their opinion.
Some low level students feel fear when working in group. This finding supports
Grandall (1999) who pointed out that student wouldn’t deal with the situation when
the teachers ask difficult questions which only a few students have answers for. He
also argued that the solution to reduce anxiety is giving students time to think and
get opportunities to communicate to each other in small groups until they become
acceptable in the classroom.
The barriers of Cooperative Learning in the classinclude that some
low level of students would not participate and some high level of students would
take over the group. Some students do not focus on the task. Students do not like the
group activity. This finding supports Feichiner and Davis (1984) who found that
students were dissatisfied with group work; students dislike group activities in the
classroom. McManus and Gettinger (1996) added that students in their study
reported that the students were most dissatisfied with the conflicts in the group when
they work together. Phipps, Kask and Higgins (2001) discovered that less than one-
fifth of the students in their sample perceived that group work positively impacted
their learning. It is difficult for the teacher to be sure that the groups are discussing
the academic content rather than something else. This finding supports Kutnick et al.
(2005) who explained that teachers believed in the benefits of teamwork but
teachers’ control can be lost. This finding supports Smith (1998) who agreed that
achievement efforts and positive relationships between students occur when teachers
use Cooperative Learning. It is obvious that students did not like to work in groups
but they will see the effectiveness of studying in a classroom when they help each
other to solve problems, somehow if students do not have confidence to ask teachers
by themselves, they can ask peers instead.
5.3.2 The Perception of Teachers about Cooperative Learning for
Learning an English Course
5.3.2.1. How Cooperative Learning helps the students
Teachers say that the small-group activities appear to benefit
students in different ways. These activities make students learn more quickly than
47
other students who do not use Cooperative Learning. Students who teach other
students find that teaching someone else improved their understanding of the lesson.
For peer teaching, students teaching each other are a very effective way to increase
student learning. Students working together in a group activity make students get a
higher level of learning and achievement than working individually. Working together
with peers encourages students to develop problem solving strategies. Slavin (1996)
described Cooperative Learning as a teaching method in which students work together
in small groups; it benefits one another, they can help each other. This allows students
to learn first-hand that there is not just one correct way to solve most problems. Small
group activities also provide students with opportunities to express their
understanding of what they have learned. They have opportunities to practice
communicating with peers when they explain something to group members. Small-
group discussions also allow students to ask and answer more questions than they
would be able to be in large-group discussions. This finding supports Cohen (1994)
who was also in agreement when he explained that Cooperative Learning is
socialization; students learn and work together in small groups to achieve a goal.
Olsen &Kagan (1992) further agreed that learning in a cooperative environment is the
exchange of information between the students in groups, thus encouraging
communication. Slavin (1983) also agreed that it encourages students to work
together in small groups to produce group classwork. Relationships among groups
will lead to great achievement, as McCulloch (1985) pointed out that group members
help each other in a welcoming environment based on a collaborative relationship
among the participants.
5.3.2.2. The barriers that the teachers have to cope with
when they apply Cooperative Learning
Some studentsdid not work cooperatively very well; especially,
some students did their individual work and made the class noisy, the classroom
management was sometimes not easy to deal with. It is difficult to control students if
there are many students in the classroom. This finding supports Kutnick et al. (2005)
who explained that teachers believed in the benefits of teamwork but teachers’ control
can be lost. It is not easy to train the students to adapt to Cooperative Learning
48
situations and to encourage them to take part in their group activities. This finding
supports Grandall (1999) who pointed out that student wouldn’t deal with the
situation when the teachers ask difficult questions which only a few students have
answers for. It is difficult to have effective methods to measure students’
performances. Some students were absent, which affected the group discussions,
cooperative atmosphere and group performances. Teachers feel uncomfortable in their
role performing in front of students. For groups, the teacher's role will be to step back
and just observe, listen, and assist students only as needed. Instead of giving or
teaching students, teachers will often step back and watch the students.
5.3.2.3. Application of Cooperative Learning in the future.
It is important that group activities can help students learn to
work in groups and to help one another. They can practice also how to work with
others. Also, students’ achievement motivation is often higher in small-group
activities because students feel more positive about being able to complete a task with
others than by working individually. This increases motivation and improves student
attitudes towards the subject and the course. This finding supports Lie (2000) who
described that the effect of using Cooperative Learning in classrooms is that students
get benefits such as high achievement, more positive relationships and better
psychological adjustment. Goldberg et al (2001) pointed out that Cooperative
Learning makes students motivated for doing well in school; students with poor
motivation are bored in school and have poor relations with their teachers.
5.3.3 The difference between the test results of the students in the
class that used Cooperative Learning (STAD) and those that did not use
Cooperative Learning (STAD)
After the midterm scores were compared, the total scores were
investigated according to the demographics and the differences among the two groups
of student. The result of the paired sample t-test analysis indicated that the
Cooperative Learning outcome was significantly higher with the students who study
by using Cooperative Learning (STAD). It has been shown that there is a positive
effect using Cooperative Learning (STAD) when compared to individual learning.
Students who study by using Cooperative Learning (STAD) can explain what they
49
have learned better than the other group. Students learn how to teach one another and
explain what they have learned in their own words. The interpersonal skills can be
learned in a Cooperative Learning (STAD) activity. This finding supports Norman
(2005) who said that Cooperative Learning (STAD) is a way to organize classes with
a goal.
5.4 CONCLUSION
The study was conducted to 1) examine the perception of students about
Cooperative Learning for studying an English Course, 2) examine the perception of
teachers about Cooperative Learning for teaching an English course and 3) To compare
the test results between students in the class that used STAD and those that did not use
STAD.
In this study, the researcher, therefore, attempted to answer thre main
research questions which were 1) What is the perception of students about
Cooperative Learning for studying in an English course? 2) What is the perception of
teachers about cooperative learning for studying in an English course? 3) What is
difference between the test results of students in the class that use Cooperative
Learning (STAD) and those that did no use Cooperative Learning (STAD)?
In order to answer these three research questions, it was important to
explore the perception of students and teachers toward Cooperative Learning. A
quantitative research and qualitative research was chosen for this study to find out the
perception of students and teachers about studying and teaching in an English course
by using Cooperative Learning. A questionnaire was conducted for students, and an
interview was conducted for teachers. The information in this study was from 54
students from a private school, Loei province, 26 boys and 28 girls. 2 teachers were
chosen for interviews. To select 54 students and 2 teachers from the whole
population, they were chosen with the non-probabilistic sampling used in this study.
The 54 questionnaires were given to 54 students; each student spent
around 10-15 minutes to answer the questionnaire. The actual interview took place in
a quiet room in the school with the two teachers. Their experiences were recorded and
later transcribed for further analysis.
50
5.5 IMPICATIONS OF THE STUDY
5.5.1 The implementation of Cooperative Learning,many teachers are worried
that Cooperative Learning may hide their students’ progress in structure-based exams.
However, the experiment of Cooperative Learning in a private school, Loei province
in an English coursedoes not show the decrease of students’ academic achievements
in the school. The group that used Cooperative Learning performed better than the
group that did not use. The Cooperative activities integrate the acquisition of these
skills and create the opportunities of powerful in learning. The experiences are
valuable for students who are learning English as a second language. They face the
challenges of language acquisition, academic learning, and social adaptation.
5.5.2 Cooperative Learning is a teaching method which is powerful that can
support the students’ motivation through a caring and sharing in the classroom. It
makes English learning more enjoyable, lively, and encouraging. The students’
motivation enhances toward learning English as a foreign language. The appropriate
feedback, praise, and rewards are returned to students of positive reinforcement.
5.5.3 In a Cooperative Learning classroom, some students’ motivation in
school and work hard at class work. Students get the caring and supports from their
teachers and peers. The motivational system in cooperative situations shown in the
results of this study, high expectations for success and based on mutual benefit,
Johnson and Johnson (1994).
5.6 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY
Since this study had done well, there are still fewer samples and it could be
better for the next study. The Cooperative Learning is still new method for Thai
school; it should be encouraged to be used in the school. And also it should be
supported in the future. According to the results of this study, recommendations for
further studies are made as follows:
Firstly, the sample of the participants was restricted to only two classes of
senior high school students. Future studies should have more participants.
Cooperative Learning in more classes is recommended in order to produce more
evidence on the effects of Cooperative Learning.
Secondly, for future study is that teacher development in Cooperative
51
Learning. The scope of the research questions is limited. It is only focused on the
perceptions of the teachers about Cooperative Learning in an English Course. This
study did not investigate the possible factors that might apply to the development of
Cooperative Learning. Further research suggested investigating the factors related to
the success of teacher development in Cooperative Learning.
It may be good to investigating how effective Cooperative Learning for the
other skills for teachers to be able to use the study to improve and develop the
teaching process. This study is based on STAD technique, for the future research it
should focus on the comparisons between the different models of Cooperative
Learning to examine if other Cooperative Learning models are effective for students.
52
REFERENCES
Arends, R. I. (1997). Classroom instruction and management. New York: The
McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
Artz, A. F., & Newman, C. M. (1990). Cooperative Learning. Mathematics Teacher,
83, 448- 449.
Becker, K. H., &Maunsaiyat, S. (2004). A Comparison of Students’ Achievement and
Attitudes between Constructivist and Traditional Classroom Environments in
Thailand Vocational Electronics Programs. Journal of Vocational Education
Research, 29 (2), 133-153.
Carlsmith, K. M., and Cooper, J. (2002). A persuasive example of collaborative
learning. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 132-135.
Cohen, C. (1998). Restructuring the classroom: Conditions for productive small
groups. Review of Educational research, 64, 1-35.
Chomsiri (2009) conduct the effect of Cooperative Learning Technique: Student
Team Assisted Individualization (TAI) on Primary 4 Students’ Reading
Comprehension at Anubanrayoung School. Master’s project, M.A. (Teaching
English as a Foreign Language). Bangkok: Graduate School, Srinakarinwirot
University.
Crandall, J. (1999). Cooperative language learning and affective factors. In Arnold, J
(Eds.) Affect in Language Learning. Cambridge University Press. Beijing:
Foreign language Teaching and Research Press, 2000.
Daenraj, D. (1999). The comparison of MathayomSuksa III Students’ Reading
Comprehension and Interest in English Learening through Cooperative Story
Mapping and the Teacher’s Manual. Master thesis, M.Ed. (Secondary
Education). Bngkok: Graduate School, Srinakharinwirot University.
Davis, B.G. (1993). Tools for Teaching, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved
from http://teaching.berkeley.edu/bgd/collaborative.html
DeVries, D. L., Edwards, K. J. & Wells, E. H. (1974). Team Competition effects on
group process. Center for Social Organization of Schools, The Johns
Hopkins University.
Gokhale, A. A. (1995). Collaborative learning enhances critical thinking. Journal of
Technology Education, 7(1), 1-8.
53
Hampton, D. &Grundnitski, G. (1996). “Does cooperative learning mean equal
learning?,” Journal of Education for Business, 72(1), pp. 5-7.
Jacob, G. M. (2006). Isssues in implementing Cooperative Learning. In S. G.
McCafferty, G. M. Jacobs, & A. C. DaSilvaIddings (Eds.), Cooperative
Learning and second language teaching (pp. 30-46). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (1975). Learning together and alone. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1994). Learning together and alone: Cooperative,
competitive, and individualistic learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T. (1999). Making Cooperative Learning work. Theory
into Practice, 38, 67-73.
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, J. (2003). Student motivation in cooperative groups:
Social interdependence theory. In R.M. Gillies& A.F. Ashman (Eds.), Co-
operative learning: The social and intellectual outcomes of learning in groups
(pp.136-176). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Kutnick, P., Blatchford, P. & Baines, E. (2005). Grouping of pupils in secondary
school classrooms: possible links between pedagogy and learning. Social
psychology of education, 8, 349-374.
Meyers, S. A. (1997). Increasing student participation and productivity in small-group
activities for psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 24, 105-115.
McCulloch, J. (1985). Lickona’s curriculum for cooperation. Ethics in Education, 4,
12-15.
McManus, S., &Gettinger, M. (1996). Teacher and student evaluations of Cooperative
Learning and observed interactive behaviors. The Journal of Educational
Research, 90, 13-22.
Meteetham, P. (2001). Case study of cooperative learning by using jigsaw technique
with second year English major students at Naresuan University. M.A.
Dissertation, Mahidol University.
Moryadee, W. (2001). Effects of cooperative learning using student teams-
achievement divisions technique on self-efficacy and English learning
achievement of Prathomsuksa five students. M.Ed. Dissertation,
54
Chulalongkorn University.
Ning H., & Hornby, G. (2010). The effectiveness of Cooperative Learning in teaching
English to Chinese tertiary learner. Effective Education, 2(2), 99-116.
Ning, H. (2011). Adapting Cooperative Learning in tertiary ELT. ELT Journal, 65(1),
60-70.
Norman, D. G. (2005). Using STAD in an EFL Elementary School Classroom in
South Korea: Effects on Student Achievement, Motivation, and Attitudes
toward Cooperative Learning. Master’s Research Paper. Asian EFL Journal.
University of Toronto.
Olsen, R. E. W. –B., &Kagan, S. (1992). About Cooperative Learning. In C. Kessler
(Ed.), Cooperative language learning: A teacher’s resource book (pp.1-30).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Pattanpichet, F. (2011). The Effects of using collaborative learning to enhance
students’ English speaking achievement, Journal of College Teaching &
Learning, 8(11), 1-10.
Phipps, M., Phipps, C., Kask, S., & Higgins, S. (2001). University students’
perception of Cooperative Learning: Implications for administrators and
instructors. The Journal of Experiential Education, 24(1), 14- 21.
Pinkeaw, P. (1993). Students’ views on interaction and learning acheivement through
cooperative learning method in upper-secondary English classess. M.A.
Dissertation, Chiangmai University.
Rossoongnoen (2005) conducted The effect of Student Teams-Achievement Fivisions
(STAD) Cooperative Learning Technique on MatthayomSuksa 2 Students’
reading Comprehension at BuddhajakWittaya School. Master’s project, MA
(Teaching English as a Foreign Language) Bangkok Graduate School,
Srinakharinwirot University Project Advisor TuenjaiChalermkit.
Rushatz, T. A. (1992). Cooperative Learning: An examination of attitudes toward
cooperative learning and its effectiveness. B.S. Thesis. State College, PA:
The Pennsylvania State University.
Saban, A. (2000). New theories and approaches in the teaching and learning process,
Nobel Press, Ankara.
Seetape, N. (2003). Effects of cooperative learning on English reading achievement
55
and learning behaviors of mathayomsuksa three students in
KanchanaphisekwittayalaiUthaithani School. M.A. Dissertation, Kasetsart
University.
Sharan, Y. (2010). Cooperative Learning for Academic and Social Gains: valued
pedagogy, problematic practice. European Journal of Education, 45,(2), 300-
313.
Shi Aimin. & Pan Li. & Zhou Xiaoqin. (2010). The teaching mode of college English
Cooperative Learning. Journal of Social Science of Hunan Medical
University, 4, 93-95.
Siriratana, P. (1999). A comparison of matayomsuksa students English reading
comprehension, writing ability, cooperative learning ability through
instruction using top level structure with CIRC and the teachers manual.
M.Ed. Dissertation, Srinakharinwirot University, Prasarnmitr.
Sittilert, W. (1994). Effects of cooperative integrated reading and composition (CIRC)
on English reading comprehension and opinions about classroom
atmosphere of mathayomsuksa five students. M.A. Dissertation, Chiangmai
University.
Slavin, R.E. (1978). Student teams and comparison among equals: Effects on
academic performance and student attitudes. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 70(4), 532-538.
Slavin, R.E. (1983). Cooperative Leaning. New York: Longman.
Slavin, R.E. (1987). Cooperative Learning and the cooperative school. Education
Leadership, 47, 52-54.
Slavin, R.E. (1995). Cooperative Learning: Theory, research, and practice. Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Slavin, R.E. (1996). Research on Cooperative Learning and achievement: What we
know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21,
43-69.
Somapee, S. (2002). The effectiveness of using cooperative learning to enhance
students’ critical thinking skills in business English I at Chiangrai
commercial school in Chiangrai. M.A. Dissertation, Payap University.
Stevens, R. J., &Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school:
56
Effects on students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American
Educational Research Journal, 32, 321- 351.
Sühendan, E. R., &Bengü, A. A. (2014). The attitudes of students towards
Cooperative Learning in ELT classes. International Online Journal of
Education and Teaching, 1(2), 31-45.
Talebi, F. &Sobhani, A. (2012). The impacts of Cooperative Learning on oral
proficiency, Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 75-79.
Tang, H. (2000). “Using cooperative concept mapping skill to teach ESL reading,”
PASSA, 30, pp. 77-89.
Thipkeg (2004) conducted Cooperative Learning Effects on Students Achievement
and Group behavior. Master of Industrial Education, Vocational Curriculum
and Instruction, School of Graduate Studies King Mongkut’s institute
technology Ladkrabang.
Thupapong, J. (1996). Effects of student team achievement devision learning (STAD)
on English reading achievement and cooperation of Mathayomsuksa students.
M.A. Dissertation, Chiangmai University.
Triwattananthongchai (2000). conduct a comparison of Mathayomsuksa students’
reading comprehension and responsibility in Thai through the instructional
method based on Cooperative Learning technique ‘STAD’ and the teacher’s
manual. Master thesis, Srinakharinwirot University.
Tuckman, B.W. (1965). “Developmental sequence in small groups,” Psychological
Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399.
Webb, N. (1985). Student interaction and learning in small groups: A research
summary. In R. Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R. Hertz-Lazarowitz, C. Webb
& R. Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn. New
York: Plenum.
Wichadee, S. (2005). The effects of Cooperative Learning on English reading skill
and attitudes of the first year students at Bangkok University. BU Academic
Review. 4(2) July-December, 22-31.
Yang, Ai-shih V. (2005). Comparison of the effectiveness of Cooperative Learning
and traditional teaching methods on Taiwanese college students’ English oral
performance and motivation towards learning, A PhD thesis, Faculty of the
57
School of Education- La Sierra University.
Yuan Ximing. (2003). The Effectiveness Of Collaborative Learning in EFL Large
Class Teaching. M.A. dissertation, Northwestern Polytechnical University.
58
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
QUESTIONNIARE FOR STUDENTS IN ENGLISH
Instructions: Read the following questions carefully for each item choose the choice
that suits you the most and please put √ or X in ( ) that corresponds with the answer
chosen.
Part 1: General Background
1. Gender
( ) Male ( ) Female
2. Score for English subject
( ) 1. 0-10 ( ) 3. 21-30
( ) 2. 11-20 ( ) 4. 31-40
(go to page 2)
59
Part 2: Cooperative Learning experience
Instructions: Read the following questions carefully for each item choose the choice that
suits you the most and please put √ or X in ( ) that corresponds with the answer chosen.
3. Have you ever participated in a group activity/assignment in the English classroom?
( )Yes( )No
4. How often do you have to be in the group activity in English Classroom?
( ) Every day ( ) Two- three times a week
( ) once a week ( ) Other (please specific)……………………………
(go to page 3)
60
Part 3 Perception of Students toward Cooperative Learning
Instructions: Please put X in the below table that corresponds with the perception of students
when study in the class
( 5 ) Strongly Agree ( 4 ) Agree ( 3 ) Uncertain ( 2 ) Disagree ( 1 )Strongly Disagree
คาถาม Strongly Agree
Agree Uncertain Disagree Strongly Disagree
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1) 5. When I work together I achieve more than when I work alone.
6. Group activities make the learning of English subject easier.
7. Cooperative Learning improves students’ knowledge, self-confidence and communication.
8. I willingly participate in Cooperative Learning activities.
9. I satisfy that my teachers apply Cooperative Learning in English subject.
10. Cooperative Learning can improve my attitude towards work.
11. Cooperative Learning enhances good working relationships among students.
12. Cooperative Learning enhances class participation.
(go to page 4)
61
Part 4: Open Ended Questions
Instructions: Please give a short answer for the following questions
13. What are the advantages of studying Cooperative Learning?
Please specific the feeling as much as you can
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
14. What are the disadvantages of studying cooperative learning?
Please specific the feeling as much as you can
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
(go to page 5)
62
APPENDIX B แบบสอบถามสาหรบนกเรยน
15. What are the reasons that make students feel uncomfortable to learn English subject by
using Cooperative Learning?
(Please specific the problem and reasons that make you feel uncomfortable if there is any)
(Please specific ‘No’ if there is no problem)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
16. What are the barriers of using cooperative learning the class?
(Please specific the problem and reasons that make you feel uncomfortable if there is any)
(Please specific ‘No’ if there is no problem)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
63
APPENDIX B
แบบสอบถามสาหรบนกเรยน
QUESTIONNAIRE IN THAI
คาช3แจง: นกเรยนโปรดใสเคร4องหมาย Xในเคร4องหมายวงเลบ(
)สาหรบตวเลอกท4ตรงกบความเปนจรงของ
นกเรยนท4สดเชน1.( x ) ชาย
สวนท9 1: ขอมลท4วไปเก4ยวกบตวของนกเรยน
1. เพศ
( ) 1.ชาย ( ) 2.หญง
2. คะแนนวชาภาษาองกฤษ
( ) 1. 0-10 ( ) 3. 21-30
( ) 2. 11-20 ( ) 4. 31-40
(พลกไปหนา2)
64
สวนท9 2: ประสบการณของนกเรยนในการเรยนภาษาองกฤษท4โรงเรยนเซนตจอหน ทาบมจงหวดเลย
คาช3แจง: นกเรยนโปรดใสเคร4องหมาย Xในเคร4องหมายวงเลบ ( ) สาหรบตวเลอกท4ตรงกบความเปนจรง
ของนกเรยนท4สดเชน 1. ( x ) เคย
3. นกเรยนเคยรวมกจกรรมการเรยนแบบแบงกลมเปนกลมยอยในชQนเรยนหรอไม?
1.( ) เคย2.( ) ไมเคย
ถาเคย ขอใหนกเรยนตอบแบบสอบถามทกขอท4มอยในแบบสอบถามนQ
4. ในหองเรยนภาษาองกฤษ คณครผสอนจดใหนกเรยนรวมกจกรรมการเรยนแบบแบงกลมเปนกลม
ยอยในชQนเรยนบอยแคไหน?
1.( )ทกครQ งท4เรยนภาษาองกฤษ 2.( ) บอยครQ ง
3. ( ) บางครQ ง 4. ( ) นาน ๆ ครQ ง
(พลกไปหนา3)
65
สวนท9 3: การรบรของนกเรยนท4มตอการเรยนภาษาองกฤษแบบแบงชQนเรยนเปนกลมยอย
คาช3แจง: โปรดใสเคร4องหมายX ลงในตารางคาถามขางลางนQ ใหตรงกบตวเลขท4เปนความรสกของนกเรยน
เม4ออยในชQนเรยน
( 5 ) เหนดวยอยางย4ง ( 4 ) เหนดวย ( 3 ) ไมแนใจ( 2 ) ไมเหนดวย ( 1 ) ไมเหนดวยอยางย4ง
คาถาม เหนดวยอยางย4ง เหนดวย ไมแนใจ ไมเหนดวย ไมเหนดวยอยางย4ง
(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)
5. เม4อฉนรวมกจกรรมการเรยนแบบแบงชQนเรยนเปนกลมยอย ฉนไดรบความรภาษาองกฤษมากกวาทางานคนเดยว
6.การเรยนภาษาองกฤษแบบแบงชQนเรยนเปนกลมยอยทาใหการเรยนวชาภาษาองกฤษงายย4งขQน
7.การเรยนภาษาองกฤษแบบแบงชQนเรยนเปนกลมยอยทาใหฉนมความร และความม4นใจในทกษะทางดานการใชภาษาองกฤษในการส4อสารมากขQน
8. ฉนตองการเขารวมกจกรรมการเรยนภาษาองกฤษแบบแบงชQนเรยนเปนกลมยอย
9.ฉนพอใจท4ครภาษาองกฤษของฉนนาวธการสอนภาษาองกฤษแบบแบงชQนเรยนเปนกลมยอยมาใชในการเรยนวชาภาษาองกฤษ
10. การเรยนภาษาองกฤษแบบแบงชQนเรยนเปนกลม
ยอยสามารถทาใหฉนรสกวาการทางานกลมในวชา
ภาษาองกฤษดขQน
11.การเรยนภาษาองกฤษแบบแบงชQนเรยนเปนกลม
ยอยทาใหความสมพนธระหวางฉนกบเพ4อนในหองเรยนดขQน
12.การเรยนภาษาองกฤษแบบแบงชQนเรยนเปนกลมยอยทาใหฉนอยากเขาหองเรยนวชาภาษาองกฤษมากขQน
(พลกไปหนา4)
66
สวนท9 4: คาถามปลายเปดเก4ยวกบการการรบรของนกเรยนท4มตอการเรยนภาษาองกฤษแบบแบงชQนเรยน
เปนกลมยอย
คาช3แจง: โปรดตอบคาถามขางลางนQ ใหตรงกบความรสกของนกเรยนเม4ออยในชQนเรยน
13. นกเรยนคดวาอะไรคอขอดของการเรยนภาษาองกฤษโดยครผสอนแบงชQนเรยนเปนกลมยอย ขอให
นกเรยนระบความรสกอยางละเอยดท4สดเทาท4จะทาได
………………………………………………………………………………………………………..….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
14. นกเรยนคดวาอะไรคอขอเสยของการเรยนภาษาองกฤษโดยครผสอนแบงชQนเรยนเปนกลมยอย ขอให
นกเรยนระบความรสกอยางละเอยดท4สดเทาท4จะทาได
……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
(พลกไปหนา5)
67
15. อะไรทาใหนกเรยนรสกไมสบายใจในการเรยนแบบแบงชQนเรยนเปนกลมยอยในวชาภาษาองกฤษ
(ถาม ขอใหนกเรยนระบปญหาและความรสกไมสบายใจอยางละเอยด พรอมเหตผล)
(ถาไมม ใหนกเรยนเขยนคาตอบในขอนQวา ‘ไมม’)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
16. อะไรทาใหนกเรยนเรยนไมรเร9องเทาท4ควรในการเรยนแบบแบงชQนเรยนเปนกลมยอยในวชา
ภาษาองกฤษ
(ถาม ขอใหระบปญหาและความรสกอยางละเอยด พรอมเหตผล)
(ถาไมม ใหนกเรยนเขยนคาตอบในขอนQวา ‘ไมม’)
…………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
68
APPENDIX C Teachers’ interview
1. In your opinion, how Cooperative Learning helps your students?
………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………
2. Tell me about barriers that you have to cope with when you apply Cooperative
Learning?
………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………
3. Do you want to apply Cooperative Learning more often?How?
………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………
69
APPENDIX D
แบบสอบถามสำหรบถามครผสอนภาษาองกฤษแบบแบงชนเรยนเปนกลมยอย
1. ในความคดของคณครผสอน
การสอนภาษาองกฤษแบบแบงชนเรยนเปนกลมยอยสามารถชวยนกเรยนของทานไดอยา
งไรบางในหองเรยนวชาภาษาองกฤษ
………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………….
2. กรณาบอกอปสรรคทคณครผสอนภาษาองกฤษพบเมอใชการสอนแบบแบงชนเรยนภาษา
องกฤษเปนกลมยอยในหองเรยนวชาภาษาองกฤษ
………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………….
3. ในหองเรยนวชาภาษาองกฤษ
คณครประยกตการสอนแบบแบงชนเรยนเปนกลมยอยบอยหรอไม อยางไร
………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………… …………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………….
70
BIOGRAPHY
Name Ms. KanPiwchai
Date of Birth July 30, 1975
Educational Attainment
2002: Bachelor of Arts, Business English
Assumption University, Thailand
Work Position Purchasing Supervisor
Bangkok International Preparatory and Secondary
School
Work Experiences 2014-Present
Purchasing Supervisor
Bangkok International Preparatory and Secondary
School
2009 – 2014
Personal Assistant to Head of Primary
AmnuaySilpa School
2008 – 2009
Personal Assistant to Head of High School
Saint John’s International school
