First Presentation
Transcript of First Presentation
![Page 1: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Learners’ perception of their STAD cooperative experience
Shing-Yu Lynn Tsai
Dr. Pi-Ying Teresa HsuDate: March 16, 2009
![Page 2: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Ghaith, G. (2001). Learners’ perception
of their STAD cooperative experience.
System 29, 289-301.
2
![Page 3: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
STAD
Student
SS
Divisions
D D
Teams-Achievement
TATA
3
![Page 4: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
STAD
Role PlayRole Play
DD
BB
CC
AA
The Teacher lectures materials & assigns a context( at the restaurant)
Team members are assigned the roles( waiters, customers)
The team members show their performance.
Team members practicethe conversation. ( How to order the meal? ) 4
![Page 5: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Contents
IV.
Introduction I.
Methodology II.
ResultIII.
5
V. Reflection
Limitation
![Page 6: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
IntroductionThe application of cooperative learning: It suggested that learners working together acquire
more language and social skills than their counterparts
studying the same content under individualistic
classroom conditions.
(Bossert, 1988; Johnson, 1988)
6
![Page 7: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
IntroductionPurposes:
It investigated middle school learners’ perceptions of the enjoyableness and effective of the STAD strategy in teaching EFL.
It investigated middle school learners’ perceptions of the enjoyableness and effective of the STAD strategy in teaching EFL.
It examined the effect of gender and prior achievement on learners’ perceptions of their cooperative experience.
It examined the effect of gender and prior achievement on learners’ perceptions of their cooperative experience.
7
![Page 8: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Introduction
positive interdependence
individual accountabilityPrinciples ofCooperative
Learning heterogeneous grouping
equal opportunity
8
![Page 9: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Research Questions
Q1:What do middle school learners think of their STAD experience?
9
The participants’ perceptions of their STADexperience tend to be on the positive ratherthan negative.
![Page 10: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Research Questions
Q2: Do high-achieving learners differ from the low-achieving learners in their perception of their STAD experience?
10
Yes, high achievers had more contribution than low achievers.
![Page 11: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Research QuestionsQ3: Do male and female learners differ in their perception of their STAD experience?
11
Most of males’ perception were more positivethan females’.
However the male participants didn’t recommend the use of STAD while all of the female participants recommended use of this strategy.
![Page 12: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Methodology
Participants
Place Lebanon
Grouping 30 low achievers31 high achievers
61 seventh-grade students enrolled in EFL sections of junior high school
12
![Page 13: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Lebanon
13
![Page 14: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Instrumentthe participants’ perceptions of the amount of their own learning
SemanticDifferential Scale
whether they would recommend CL in other class or not
their perception of the amount of their contribution to the learning of their group mates
14
![Page 15: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Treatment
Period
Program Language art program
Group
12 weeks
14 heterogonous teams-mixed-gender & mix-ability
15
![Page 16: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Treatment
Team
recognition
Team recognition
Teacher’slecture
Teacher’slecture
Individual quizzes
Individual quizzes
Team study
The STAD cooperative strategy
16
![Page 17: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Statistical analysis
Pearson Chi-square Independent variables:gender & achievement
( Q2 & Q3)
Pearson Chi-square Dependent variables:
the participants’ responses to the scale
17
![Page 18: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Result
Table 1
Percentages of response by gender
18
Scale Useful Not frustrating Fun Interesting Worthwhile Clear Learning Recommend Contribution
Female 36% 30% 49% 60% 53% 50% 49% 61% 49%
Male 66% 66% 53% 62% 58% 80% 83% 33% 55%
Most of male participants were more positive than female. However, most of female recommended this strategy.
Most of male participants were more positive than female. However, most of female recommended this strategy.
![Page 19: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Result
Table 2
Percentages of response by achievement level
19
Scale Useful Not frustrating Fun Interesting Worthwhile Clear Learning Recommend Contribution
Low 53% 23% 53% 63% 52% 75% 63% 60% 33%
High 51% 36% 51% 68% 61% 69% 74% 57% 74%
For the contribution part, high achievers had more contribution than low achievers.
For the contribution part, high achievers had more contribution than low achievers.
![Page 20: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Limitation
20
The researchers divided students into high achievers and low achievers.Are there any intermediate students? ?
![Page 21: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
ReflectionReflection
High
Low
Do you think itis fair?
Yes / No
R
H
21
![Page 22: First Presentation](https://reader035.fdocuments.in/reader035/viewer/2022070317/5563bdc4d8b42a79028b583a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Thank you for your listening!
22